Honestly, now that Obama is the nominee........

[Blondie85]

Honestly, now that Obama is the nominee , and this is for Hillary supporters, will you vote Democratic or Republican ?



Personally, I'll vote Republican if she isnt on the ticket. I can't stand Obama and his supporters. For some reason his slogans drive me crazy: "Yes we can" , "Change we can belive in". What a joke.

This video explains it quite well
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/szS1pPd2Rp4&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/szS1pPd2Rp4&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[BombaySapphire3]

The Clintonian era of the Democratic party is over .I don't think he will choose her as V.P. and if some of her supporters vote Republican then they really are not Democrats anyway .

[Phoenix]

The Clintonian era of the Democratic party is over .I don't think he will choose her as V.P. and if some of her supporters vote Republican then they really are not Democrats anyway .

In your humble opinion.:o:rolleyes:

[Phoenix]

I don't know now honestly. He really seems like a "sheep in wolves clothing" to me, and thats scary. But i will not be voting for osama obama (as i have heard him called):laugh: but then again, i dont know if our country can survive annother term of a republican president. Oh good lord, if only oprah had indorsed Hillary.


here, ill save you the trouble,blah, blah, your statements are so ignorant blah blah, obama rules, blah blah, grandpa mccain is a war vet.
-just save it.

[DavidMn]

I talked to a friend of mine that is a Libertarian, but a thoughtful political thinker. He thinks The Obama/McCain vote will be much closer than alot of people think. The reason: because Obama is African-AMerican, and my friend told me whether or not SOME people will admit it, they will not vote for him for that one simple reason. So let me ask the question that needs to be asked, whether we all like it or not. Do you agree with my friend and why,or do you not agree and why?

[BombaySapphire3]

your statements are so ignorant
-just save it.

you said it!:wavey:

[BombaySapphire3]

I talked to a friend of mine that is a Libertarian, but a thoughtful political thinker. He thinks The Obama/McCain vote will be much closer than alot of people think. The reason: because Obama is African-AMerican, and my friend told me whether or not SOME people will admit it, they will not vote for him for that one simple reason. So let me ask the question that needs to be asked, whether we all like it or not. Do you agree with my friend and why,or do you not agree and why?

There sadly may be some truth to that ..When I was 20 years old in 1982 I voted for a black man as the Governer of California ,Tom Bradley the then mayor of Los Angeles who was ahead in all the polls but somehow lost to some awful Reagan wannabe Duekmajin (not sure if that is the correct spelling)It is thought to this day that people actually told the pollsters they would vote for Bradley and when they got in the booth did not because of his race..I was very disappointed then .I hope the country has moved past that kind of ignorance.

[SuzeQuze]

I don't know now honestly. He really seems like a "sheep in wolves clothing" to me, and thats scary. But i will not be voting for osama obama (as i have heard him called):laugh: but then again, i dont know if our country can survive annother term of a republican president. Oh good lord, if only oprah had indorsed Hillary.


here, ill save you the trouble,blah, blah, your statements are so ignorant blah blah, obama rules, blah blah, grandpa mccain is a war vet.
-just save it.

You're too smart to be parroting Limbaugh.

[LukeA]

Honestly, now that Obama is the nominee , and this is for Hillary supporters, will you vote Democratic or Republican ?



Personally, I'll vote Republican if she isnt on the ticket. I can't stand Obama and his supporters. For some reason his slogans drive me crazy: "Yes we can" , "Change we can belive in". What a joke.

If you're voting largely based on slogans, you're just as moronic as the idiots who voted for Bush because they'd rather have a beer with him than Gore/Kerry.

Oh, and if you consider yourself a Democrat, yet would rather vote for McCain, than Obama- guess what. You're not a real Democrat, and you'd rather stomp your feet and exhibit your sour grapes rather than vote/work to help advance this country for the better of the common (Democratic belief) good.

Oh, you also have other issues to work out, t0o (DavidMN broached one prominent one that sadly impacts many people's choices)

[Phoenix]

I talked to a friend of mine that is a Libertarian, but a thoughtful political thinker. He thinks The Obama/McCain vote will be much closer than alot of people think. The reason: because Obama is African-AMerican, and my friend told me whether or not SOME people will admit it, they will not vote for him for that one simple reason. So let me ask the question that needs to be asked, whether we all like it or not. Do you agree with my friend and why,or do you not agree and why?

well, maybe im just not talking to the same people that you are , but on the other side of the coin you presented, i tend to know alot of people who want to vote for him just BECAUSE he is africanamerican. Thats how they are interpreting "vote for change" i think it is terrible to not vote for someone based on race (or gender, sexual orientation, or religeous affiliations) but i also hate if that IS the reason why someone gets the vote also.

[Phoenix]

You're too smart to be parroting Limbaugh.

Thats not where i heard that, but eww, I hate Limbaugh.:shocked:

[LukeA]

well, maybe im just not talking to the same people that you are , but on the other side of the coin you presented, i tend to know alot of people who want to vote for him just BECAUSE he is africanamerican. Thats how they are interpreting "vote for change" i think it is terrible to not vote for someone based on race (or gender, sexual orientation, or religeous affiliations) but i also hate if that IS the reason why someone gets the vote also.

Your point being?

An exceedingly large number of women who voted for Hillary did so primarily because she's a woman. Exit polls have proven that predilection (and that's just those who were willing to admit it)

[Phoenix]

you said it!:wavey:

:lol::rolleyes: Honestly, someday, you and I are goning to agree on SOMETHING:wavey: but untill then, hey, if 4years go by, and GOD KNOWS WHAT doesnt go horribly wrong and he doesnt screw up the country. I'll totally owe u a Coke.:D

[Phoenix]

Your point being?

An exceedingly large number of women who voted for Hillary did so primarily because she's a woman. Exit polls have proven that predilection (and that's just those who were willing to admit it)

EXACALLY. And how much does it bother you that that is what happened. That IS my point. People voting for him JUST because he is african american bothers me JUST AS MUCH as people voting for HILLARY JUST BECAUSE she's a woman.
ThatISmypoint.

[Phoenix]

Your point being?

An exceedingly large number of women who voted for Hillary did so primarily because she's a woman. Exit polls have proven that predilection (and that's just those who were willing to admit it)

EXACALLY. And how much does it bother you that that was the case. That IS my point. People voting for him JUST because he is african american bothers me JUST AS MUCH as people voting for HILLARY JUST BECAUSE she's a woman.
ThatISmypoint.

[strandinthewind]

Careful there - if you say blacks voted for Obama because he is black and/or if you are white and espouse any guff on Obama, you likely will brand you a racist these days :nod: And, the reverse is not true., which, in my book, is racism as well.

As for Obama - I voted for him in the GA primary because his platform most clearly tracks what I believe. As we have discussed to death in the Hillary thread, the facts clearly indicate Obama is a comparative political neophyte who the press has given a free pass. While I think Hillary was the more electable choice, I will vote for Obama, even though I think he mostly is full of shiitte when he talks about change (again, which politician doesn't talk about change :rolleyes: )

In the end, I hope I am wrong.

[mylittledemon]

Oh, and if you consider yourself a Democrat, yet would rather vote for McCain, than Obama- guess what. You're not a real Democrat, and you'd rather stomp your feet and exhibit your sour grapes rather than vote/work to help advance this country for the better of the common (Democratic belief) good.



Do you have a grip on political reality? Obama isn't any more a "democrat" than McCain is. Listen to what he says and what he stands for.

[HejiraNYC]

I have given some thought to this recently (believe it or not!), and I have come to the following conclusions:

-I no longer consider myself a Democrat. At least the "new" Democratic party as it exists today, which, as Donna Brazile so notoriously pointed out, is comprised only of blacks and upscale white liberals. As much as I would like to say that I left the Democrats, in reality they left me. They have also become a party that rewards under-handed Karl Rove-ian tactics and has shown time after time how spineless they have become, as evidenced by the outrageously anti-American ruling by the RBC on May 31. The Democratic majority in congress has been completely useless, Pelosi is a total failure as senate majority leader (what about that Bush impeachment, Toots?) and Howard Dean is a complete moron.

-My beliefs tend to track more along the lines of what is now considered Libertarian- minimal government intervention, socially very liberal, fiscally very conservative- positions that are somewhat at odds with Obama's stand on the issues.

-As nice as all of Obama's plans seem to sound, I really have not heard how we are going to pay for any of this. I have no reason to believe that Obama has even the foggiest idea about basic economic principles, which leads me to believe he is the second coming of Jimmy Carter. At least Hillary offers some broad outline of how things would be funded, and she does have the advantage of being connected to Bill, who managed to eke out a 500 billion dollar budget surplus by the end of his term.

- Speaking of Jimmy Carter, I can't get beyond this image of Obama being the same kind of wet dish rag when it comes to foreign policy. I could easily see how Obama would allow an Iran hostage situation to drag on for years with no resolution- his record has shown him to be a person who is hesitant about taking a firm stand on an issue, a malignant pacifist and a person who will do or say anything to get what he wants, no matter how damaging it may be to others.

-In the sum total of things, you are defined by the company you keep. I think we all know the deal with Obama.

At the end of the day, I think Obama's "cinching" of the nomination is a tainted victory- by the electoral votes that were basically handed to him from MI. Only in some dictatorship would a person get votes from an election they didn't run in. And the caucuses were completely rigged (e.g., busing thousands of voters in from out of state, where voter IDs were not checked, etc.). And Hillary did win the popular vote. How very un-democratic of the Democrats. It is an utter disgrace, and it's sad that they have turned into a bunch of weak, indecisive, morally bankrupt elitists. :distress:

My main problem with McCain is his party affiliation. But at least he has a track record (unlike Obama) of not always voting with his party, so he isn't just blowing hot air when he says that he is different from Bush. He actually acknowledges global warming and the need for energy independence- and actually voted against Bush's ludicrous energy bill (which Obama voted for, BTW). He actually acknowledges gay rights and voted against Bush's proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which, like Obama and Clinton, he believes should be decided at the state level :rolleyes: . He does not come across as some kind of freaky evangelical (ala Huckabee), and he does not come across as some kind of hypocrite (ala Obama); he's been fully vetted after decades of public service. Regarding Roe v. Wade, the GOP has had decades to overturn this, yet they haven't. Considering all of the crap that's going on in the world today, I do not think a sh*tstorm like removing abortion rights is going to be a top priority any time soon; my feeling is that it is just one of those overplayed wedge issues that gets the right wing stirred up every election cycle. But ultimately, if Ann Coulter hates him, it means that he's probably a pretty decent guy... on some level.

Also, since it appears that both the House and the Senate are going to have a pretty significant Democratic majority under the next president, I am a bit concerned about giving the Democrats too much power, which could be just as bad as giving the GOP too much power. My main concern is that every manner of bailout, payout, subsidy legislation (which the Dems love) is going to be passed unhindered, taxes will be raised and our debt will increase even more. The most recent example of this was that idiotic housing bailout bill sponsored by Barney Frank, which would have passed if it wasn't for the wise (I can't believe I'm saying this) veto by Bush. In 8 years of being president, that is the one and only thing he did correctly. Anyway, my sense is that a Dem-controlled congress along with a GOP-controlled executive branch *may* be necessary in order to keep some semblance of checks and balances. This could help to prevent some really wacky legislation from going through.

So there you have it- if it's not Clinton (and she's still technically running :rolleyes: ), then it's McCain for me.

[strandinthewind]

McCain is no bird's nest on the ground, to wit:

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

At least Obama has a better voting civil rights record, to wit:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm

For that reason alone, I am voting for Obama, despite his glaring flaws, which are many, and that fact that my BS detector vibrates so wildly when he speaks that I am considering marrying it.

[rubytuesday]

[font="arial"]which leads me to believe he is the second coming of Jimmy Carter.

Here's hoping! Someone who is admirable an advocate for human rights negotiates peace instead of dominating the world into hatred of America, and someone who at the most basic level recognises that there's a whole world out there and the rest of us can have as much impact upon america as americans can themselves. All that bull**** talk about national security....put someone in charge who is willing to talk with Iran and that's a small step but it would go so much further to national security than anything in recent years. America is as unsafe as it has ever been and i think obama is the first step in any hope of reversing that.

[strandinthewind]

[font="arial"] . . . In 8 years of being president, that is the one and only thing he did correctly . . . .

Actually, there were others, like when he did not repeal Clinton's Executive Order prohibiting discrimination against gays in the Fed. workplace, despite what I am sure was wildly heated pressure to do so.

Here are some others that are mostly correct:

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/profiles/tp/What-Bush-Has-Done-Right.htm

I do not like the guy, but facts are facts.

[BombaySapphire3]

fAnyone who is remotely moderate should really wait to see who McCain picks as a running mate before they consider voting for him ...imagine if he picks a wingnut like Huckabee ..a fanatic in sheep's clothing or even Romney ..they would be one 70 something man's heartbeat away from the Presidency.

[strandinthewind]

Here's hoping! Someone who is admirable an advocate for human rights negotiates peace instead of dominating the world into hatred of America, and someone who at the most basic level recognises that there's a whole world out there and the rest of us can have as much impact upon america as americans can themselves. All that bull**** talk about national security....put someone in charge who is willing to talk with Iran and that's a small step but it would go so much further to national security than anything in recent years. America is as unsafe as it has ever been and i think obama is the first step in any hope of reversing that.

I think his point was that Carter was, by pretty much all acoounts, completely ineffective as a President, despite his altruistic goals and his effectiveness since.

As for the rest of the world hating America - I have been abroad pretty much every year since 9/11 and very few that I spoke to hated America. Many hated Bush though. I also think it is interesting that people say they hate America, but then bitch and complain when America does not provide them with relief from natural disasters and the like; America almost always leads the way in these situations.

Also, I think invading Afganistan and capturing and/or killing many terroroists went miles further than talking to Iran in some benign way, esp. when Iran's leader is a known liar :shrug: and despite W's failure to reach any conclusion in Afganistan - this is the underlying flaw of W's administration. There is a valient initial effort with no coherent or well planned follow up. Again, if America and ousted SH with an all out invasion and then got Iraq up and running in a year (which was possible), would 95% of those currently complaining still be complaining - I say no.

In the end, America is flawed and has done some bad things, but it is still the undisputed leader of the free world, the world turns to it for money and guidance, and it provides relief for many nations. I think that pisses people off.

[strandinthewind]

fAnyone who is remotely moderate should really wait to see who McCain picks as a running mate before they consider voting for him ...imagine if he picks a wingnut like Huckabee ..a fanatic in sheep's clothing or even Romney ..they would be one 70 something man's heartbeat away from the Presidency.

I agree. The sad thing is that I think McCain is a decent man who is not a liar. I cannot vote for him though and, instead, will vote for Obama, who I think is a liar. Oh politics!

[rubytuesday]

As for the rest of the world hating America - I have been abroad pretty much every year since 9/11 and very few that I spoke to hated America. Many hated Bush though. I also think it is interesting that people say they hate America, but then bitch and complain when America does not provide them with relief from natural disasters and the like; America almost always leads the way in these situations.

I've lived in countries that aren't the US every year since I was born and most don't hate Americans, I'm very friendly with a few myself but whenever people ask them where they're from they have their standard joke response "I'm American, but nobody's perfect". If you think much of the world does not hate America then you must have forgotten about sept 11 already and thats just one giant example instead of pointing out the continued hatred that does not make the news daily. I think people have a right to complain if america does not provide relief. Like I'd be making a stand if the countries I'm from didn't contribute. Maybe that's why they might hate america, if there ignored by them and don't receive relief. Anyway I don't think they lead the world. America is last or near last on the list of western countries foreign aid. They give a lot but you can't expect a country of 6 million to match the contribution of America. If you look at the statistics america is far below the world leaders, I think last.

In the end, America is flawed and has done some bad things, but it is still the undisputed leader of the free world, the world turns to it for money and guidance, and it provides relief for many nations. I think that pisses people off.:lol::confused: yeah sure that's what pisses people off. that is such a naive view of the world. I think there's a little more too it than that. It's like saying the arab nations of the mimddle east are just jealous cause israel has more friends....and a better night club scene. jeez. believe what you want its not even an opinion its a fact that that is not why a lot of world hates america.

[HejiraNYC]

Here's hoping! Someone who is admirable an advocate for human rights negotiates peace instead of dominating the world into hatred of America, and someone who at the most basic level recognises that there's a whole world out there and the rest of us can have as much impact upon america as americans can themselves. All that bull**** talk about national security....put someone in charge who is willing to talk with Iran and that's a small step but it would go so much further to national security than anything in recent years. America is as unsafe as it has ever been and i think obama is the first step in any hope of reversing that.

Well, as someone who had to endure the Carter years, please take him off our hands! How would you have felt to be one of those hostages held in Iran for... hundreds of days? If you think the U.S. dollar is weak now, it was literally worth less than toilet paper back then ($900 per oz. of gold in 1979 dollars!), energy crises, 16% interest rates, etc. At best Carter brokered a tenuous peace between Israel and Egypt... but how can you praise that without realizing that he sent the U.S. into a tailspin financially? I don't think anyone could reasonably expect someone who has had zero international experience and zero military experience to be able to somehow ensure that we (and our allies) will be safer and more secure. I mean, I can go around saying that I hate war, I love to talk and hold hands, but does that mean I am somehow a master diplomat and commander in chief? The fact is, I have only 13 months less experience in the U.S. senate than Obama.

[trackaghost]

As for the rest of the world hating America - I have been abroad pretty much every year since 9/11 and very few that I spoke to hated America. Many hated Bush though. I also think it is interesting that people say they hate America, but then bitch and complain when America does not provide them with relief from natural disasters and the like; America almost always leads the way in these situations.


But you're American. I don't think you're going to get the same view as someone actually living in another country looking in. And to be fair Strand, a lot of that "America is the the undisputed leader of the world" arrogance is the exact reason why people hate the US.

[gldstwmn]

The Clintonian era of the Democratic party is over .

Don't bet on it.

[gldstwmn]

Oh good lord, if only oprah had indorsed Hillary.

I know. She lost a good share of her audience when she endorsed him.

[gldstwmn]

I talked to a friend of mine that is a Libertarian, but a thoughtful political thinker. He thinks The Obama/McCain vote will be much closer than alot of people think. The reason: because Obama is African-AMerican, and my friend told me whether or not SOME people will admit it, they will not vote for him for that one simple reason. So let me ask the question that needs to be asked, whether we all like it or not. Do you agree with my friend and why,or do you not agree and why?

There is no doubt in my mind that people will vote both for and against Obama because he is African American.

[gldstwmn]

Do you have a grip on political reality? Obama isn't any more a "democrat" than McCain is. Listen to what he says and what he stands for.

Before I completely lost interest in his speech last night, I heard him espouse a few Reaganisms.

[HejiraNYC]

fAnyone who is remotely moderate should really wait to see who McCain picks as a running mate before they consider voting for him ...imagine if he picks a wingnut like Huckabee ..a fanatic in sheep's clothing or even Romney ..they would be one 70 something man's heartbeat away from the Presidency.

I agree. I think Huckabee seems like a nice guy, but he is from Planet Wack-a-doodle. To be honest, I don't know much about Romney beyond the fact that he was gov. of MA, was CEO of a corporation and he's a Mormon. But there's something oddly creepy about him... maybe it's that perma-tan and the movie-star hair. But who's even more creepy is that young governor of Louisiana, Bobby Gindal (sp??). His views are like Huckabee's, but coming from a young Indian American... it's just all kinds of wrong for me- he should be the face of the new "hipper" GOP, but his views come right out of the Bible. But hey, apparently he has a phenomenally high approval rating in Louisiana, so maybe there's something there that I am missing.

[HejiraNYC]

I have been abroad pretty much every year since 9/11 and very few that I spoke to hated America. Many hated Bush though.

Well, I think all men of your ilk would think the same thing. :wavey:

[HejiraNYC]

There is no doubt in my mind that people will vote both for and against Obama because he is African American.

I will take it a step further and posit that some people may be sick of the race baiting put out by Obama's campaign and supporters, i.e., you're a racist if you don't vote for Obama, and would vote accordingly in protest.

[gldstwmn]

-I no longer consider myself a Democrat. At least the "new" Democratic party as it exists today, which, as Donna Brazile so notoriously pointed out, is comprised only of blacks and upscale white liberals. As much as I would like to say that I left the Democrats, in reality they left me. They have also become a party that rewards under-handed Karl Rove-ian tactics and has shown time after time how spineless they have become, as evidenced by the outrageously anti-American ruling by the RBC on May 31. The Democratic majority in congress has been completely useless, Pelosi is a total failure as senate majority leader (what about that Bush impeachment, Toots?) and Howard Dean is a complete moron.



Couldn't agree more. Pelosi is a huge disappointment to me. I thought Dean might be good as head of the DNC. And yet he's managed to phuck that up just like the Iowa caucus against Kerry. As for Donna Brazile the "uncomitted super delegate" give me a break. I truly feel that the party has left me. I don't know who to vote for. :shrug: I never thought I would see the day when Democrats would turn on the only two term Dem president in 80 years. And that Vanity Fair article! Talk about a hit piece. I am disgusted that Graydon Carter allowed this to be printed. WTF is wrong with these people? It's like they've been brainwashed by some subliminal message in Obama's creepy campaign posters.

[gldstwmn]

Here's hoping! Someone who is admirable an advocate for human rights negotiates peace instead of dominating the world into hatred of America, and someone who at the most basic level recognises that there's a whole world out there and the rest of us can have as much impact upon america as americans can themselves. All that bull**** talk about national security....put someone in charge who is willing to talk with Iran and that's a small step but it would go so much further to national security than anything in recent years. America is as unsafe as it has ever been and i think obama is the first step in any hope of reversing that.

I have much repsect for President Carter. However interest rates hovered around the 21% mark and there was a shortage of gas during his presidency. It wasn't the greatest of times.

[HejiraNYC]

McCain is no bird's nest on the ground, to wit:

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

At least Obama has a better voting civil rights record, to wit:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm

For that reason alone, I am voting for Obama, despite his glaring flaws, which are many, and that fact that my BS detector vibrates so wildly when he speaks that I am considering marrying it.

Well, like I said, McCain has established via his voting record that he does not follow his party all of the time, e.g., voting against drilling in ANWR. As for his record on civil rights, I think Obama and McCain have considerable common ground. But the fact remains that Obama simply does not have the voting record/experience to truly get a sense of where he stands on a lot of issues. And I am not saying that I disagree with much of what he is saying on social issues. It's just everything else, combined with his thin resume and absence of achievements/action that has me more than a little worried.

[GypsySorcerer]

I agree. I think Huckabee seems like a nice guy, but he is from Planet Wack-a-doodle. To be honest, I don't know much about Romney beyond the fact that he was gov. of MA, was CEO of a corporation and he's a Mormon. But there's something oddly creepy about him... maybe it's that perma-tan and the movie-star hair. But who's even more creepy is that young governor of Louisiana, Bobby Gindal (sp??). His views are like Huckabee's, but coming from a young Indian American... it's just all kinds of wrong for me- he should be the face of the new "hipper" GOP, but his views come right out of the Bible. But hey, apparently he has a phenomenally high approval rating in Louisiana, so maybe there's something there that I am missing.

I'm convinced McCain will pick Romney, Jindal, or Lieberman.

[David]

I can't cast a vote in this poll. You ask "Will you vote Democratic?" but you don't provide an option for "No."

[Stew_Matthews]

Aside from the distraction around the Hilary/Obama race, I would ask, has there ever been an election year with such unimpressive choices on all sides? At a time when the western world is in a bit of a mess, it is a touch disappointing that the election of the most important world leader has drawn such poor candidates from each party imo.

[strandinthewind]

I've lived in countries that aren't the US every year since I was born and most don't hate Americans, I'm very friendly with a few myself but whenever people ask them where they're from they have their standard joke response "I'm American, but nobody's perfect". If you think much of the world does not hate America then you must have forgotten about sept 11 already and thats just one giant example instead of pointing out the continued hatred that does not make the news daily. I think people have a right to complain if america does not provide relief. Like I'd be making a stand if the countries I'm from didn't contribute. Maybe that's why they might hate america, if there ignored by them and don't receive relief. Anyway I don't think they lead the world. America is last or near last on the list of western countries foreign aid. They give a lot but you can't expect a country of 6 million to match the contribution of America. If you look at the statistics america is far below the world leaders, I think last . . . .

I do not buy the whole statistical argument theory. I think it compares apples and oranges. Also, when America's private money is considered, it is even larger. But, people do not see it that way. So be it.

[/QUOTE] . . . . believe what you want its not even an opinion its a fact that that is not why a lot of world hates america. [/QUOTE]

Actually, it is not a fact. it is your opinion. Do you really think not even one person out there feels that way :shrug:

Anyway - this is a dead horse.

[BombaySapphire3]

Aside from the distraction around the Hilary/Obama race, I would ask, has there ever been an election year with such unimpressive choices on all sides? At a time when the western world is in a bit of a mess, it is a touch disappointing that the election of the most important world leader has drawn such poor candidates from each party imo.

uh lets' see maybe way back in 2004?I for one am happy to give Barack Obama a chance. After nearly eight years of suffering through the administration of perhaps the absolute worst President in American history I look forward to the day in January when I can say with some hope and expectation words that would have been unthinkable to utter since January of 2001 ..HE IS MY PRESIDENT.

[strandinthewind]

But you're American. I don't think you're going to get the same view as someone actually living in another country looking in. And to be fair Strand, a lot of that "America is the the undisputed leader of the world" arrogance is the exact reason why people hate the US.

I say America is the undisputed leader of the world because that is a fact. What other country provides the aid America does? Who do nations run to first? Who usually is first to provide aid? What other country leads like America does? So, factually, I am correct. If not - let's see the proof. So, whether people see that as arrogant is beside my point here. Though, I made the point earlier that I think people resent America for having that position. Is it the saying of it that pisses people off or seems arrogant - I guess so.

In the end, I think at times that America would be better off stopping all aid and going back to isolationism. Then, who would hate us. Likely, I suggest, even more people. So, America cannot win for losing so to speak.

Here is a cool article on the progession of America's leadership in the world:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6807/wleader.html

[strandinthewind]

Well, I think all men of your ilk would think the same thing. :wavey:

Ruined any film lately?

[HejiraNYC]

Ruined any film lately?

That would be just between me and my SD card! Get with the digital program; you're showing your age! :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

That would be just between me and my SD card! Get with the digital program; you're showing your age! :wavey:

Not half as much as the sagging in what ever medium you chose :wavey:

Excause me, now I have to go be an elitist and arrogant American :D

[Stew_Matthews]

uh lets' see maybe way back in 2004?

.....I think both Kerry and Edwards had a number of attributes that the current Democratic slate don't.............. and I think it is generally more difficult for the democratic party to win (as in the case with Labour in Britain) and more so against a man who has already served one term.

..........of perhaps the absolute worst President in American history I look forward to the day in January when I can say with some hope and expectation words that would have been unthinkable to utter since January of 2001 ..HE IS MY PRESIDENT.

I personally don't think he's the worst but he is indeed a flawed man. It is time that a woman or black/ethnic person was elected so for different reasons to you maybe, I will be pleased if Obama wins the election.

[strandinthewind]

. . . I will be pleased if Obama wins the election.

I will too - though I think he is very flawed. McCain, however, is more flawed in ideology.

[HejiraNYC]

I will too - though I think he is very flawed. McCain, however, is more flawed in ideology.

Do you think Obambi would be a more effective commander of the military?

[HejiraNYC]

The latest rumor spreading around the internets (note: source unknown/unverified):


The Michelle Obama Rant Tape was filmed between June 26th - July 1st 2004 in Chicago, IL at the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition Conference at Trinity United Church: specifically the Women’s Event.

Michelle Obama appeared as a panelist alongside Mrs. Khadijah Farrakhan and Mrs. James Meeks.

Bill Clinton spoke during the Conference, as did Bill Cosby and other speakers, but not at the panel Michelle attended.

Michelle Obama spoke at the Women’s Event, but referenced Bill Clinton in her rant — his presence at the conference was the impetus for her raving, it seems.

For about 30 minutes, Michelle Obama launched into a rant about the evils of America, and how America is to blame for the problems of Africa. Michelle personally blamed President Clinton for the deaths of millions of Africans and said America is responsible for the genocide of the Tutsis and other ethnic groups. She then launched into an attack on “whitey”, and talked about solutions to black on black crime in the realm of diverting those actions onto white America. Her rant was fueled by the crowd: they reacted strongly to what she said, so she got more passionate and enraged, and that’s when she completely loses it and says things that have made the mouths drop of everyone who’s seen this.

The “tape” is a DVD that Trinity United sold on its website, and possibly offered free for download up until March 2008 when Trinity’s site was scrubbed and the DVDs were no longer offered for sale.

This outburst happened just one month before the 2004 Democratic Convention, when Barack Obama delivered the keynote address.



Draw your own conclusions. I'm afraid there's no more room for Michelle under Obama's bus. :lol: :p

[dontlookdown]

Of course I'll vote for Senator Obama. And so will an overwhelming majority of Democrats and Independents.
You can mull over the slogans, his skin color, Rev. Wright, his time as editor of the Harvard Law Review, his "bitter" sound byte all you want; but come election day every voter that's a true Democrat will have a few core issues on his or her mind:

1. THE SUPREME COURT APPOINTEES. IT IS HIGHLY LIKELY THAT 2 WILL BE MADE DURING THE NEXT 8 YEARS. IF YOU VOTE FOR McCAIN, YOU ARE BASICALLY CONDONING HIS VIEW THAT WOMEN ARE SECOND CLASS CITIZENS. A VOTE FOR McCAIN SAYS "ROE vs. WADE IS NOT IMPORTANT TO ME".
2. A VOTE FOR McCAIN SAYS "I SUPPORT GEORGE BUSH'S WAR IN IRAQ.
3. A VOTE FOR McCAIN SAYS "I SUPPORT GEORGE BUSH'S ARCHAIC ECONOMIC POLICY.
4. A VOTE FOR McCAIN SAYS "I SUPPORT GEORGE BUSH'S ARCHAIC ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY.
5. A VOTE FOR McCAIN SAYS "I SUPPORT GEORGE BUSH'S ISOLATIONIST POLICY THAT DISREGARDS ANY KIND OF POLICY THAT ENCOURAGES A POSITIVE VIEW OF THE U.S. FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES.
6. A VOTE FOR McCAIN SAYS "I SUPPORT GEORGE BUSH'S ARCHAIC ATTITUDE THAT EDUCATION AND INTELLECTUALISM ARE TO BE LOOKED DOWN UPON".

All this talk among Hillary supporters about not supporting Obama is ridiculous and Clinton herlself would be the first to agree with me on this.

p.s. the Michelle Obama tape is completely false. She would never use the word or phrase "whitey". Step out of your West Virginia mindsets and open your eyes.

And one more thought: was last night the first time a candidate in 2nd place did not concede after the front runner reached enough delegates to become the nominee?
I thought it was pretty tactless and showed a real character flaw in Clinton. Does she ever reach a point when it is no longer Me Me Me Me?

[David]

I say America is the undisputed leader of the world because that is a fact. Americans know how to grill a Porterhouse steak outdoors on the grill. Aussies do, too. But Europeans have it all wrong.

http://www.pastrywiz.com/dailyrecipes/images/588.jpg

[David]

I'm convinced McCain will pick Romney, Jindal, or Lieberman.What about Mordechai Eliyahu?

[strandinthewind]

. . . Step out of your West Virginia mindsets and open your eyes.

Elitist :rolleyes:

. . . Does she ever reach a point when it is no longer Me Me Me Me?

Well, when you likely have the popular vote or at least tens of millions of votes in a close election, you weigh your options. Also, Obama said he was fine with it :shrug:

IMO - she will bow out once Obama pays her debt. Then, she will come out like gangbusters for him as she did last night and vice versa. I also still maintain that she would be a helluva running mate.

As for the tape - I doubt it exists because if it did and was solf publicly, it would have surfaced by now.

Finally, it is not just talk or speculation. Many people are vehemently stating it :shrug: I hope they change their minds because McCain is not what I think we need and Obama is the closest thing to that.

As for the Commander in Chief position -- I think the Pres. rarely acts alone and the generals in charge pretty much call the shots.

[strandinthewind]

Americans know how to grill a Porterhouse steak outdoors on the grill. Aussies do, too. But Europeans have it all wrong.

http://www.pastrywiz.com/dailyrecipes/images/588.jpg

don't get saucy with me bernaise

Also - I love Aussie beef!

[HejiraNYC]

Of course I'll vote for Senator Obama. And so will an overwhelming majority of Democrats and Independents.

The latest polls I've heard give Obama only a slight advantage in terms of the Indies.


You can mull over the slogans, his skin color, Rev. Wright, his time as editor of the Harvard Law Review, his "bitter" sound byte all you want; but come election day every voter that's a true Democrat will have a few core issues on his or her mind:

So how do you define a "true Democrat?" Someone who blindly votes down the ticket regardless of what is handed in front of yo u?


1. THE SUPREME COURT APPOINTEES. IT IS HIGHLY LIKELY THAT 2 WILL BE MADE DURING THE NEXT 8 YEARS. IF YOU VOTE FOR McCAIN, YOU ARE BASICALLY CONDONING HIS VIEW THAT WOMEN ARE SECOND CLASS CITIZENS. A VOTE FOR McCAIN SAYS "ROE vs. WADE IS NOT IMPORTANT TO ME".

Fearmonger much? Any Supreme nomination has to be vetted through congress. It's doubtful that any right wing nutso will pass muster through a congress that has a heavy Democratic majority. You also make the assumption that McCain is going to be in there for 8 years. I don't think he will make it that long... one way or another.



4. A VOTE FOR McCAIN SAYS "I SUPPORT GEORGE BUSH'S ARCHAIC ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY.

That's utter bullsh*t, and you know it. He has been with the Dems on many environmental issues.


All this talk among Hillary supporters about not supporting Obama is ridiculous and Clinton herlself would be the first to agree with me on this.

She is playing the happy party gal now, but I know that deep inside she is utterly disgusted by what has become of the Democrats. Ridiculous or not, people with eyes and ears can see the blatant displays of race baiting, fear mongering, overt sexism, misogyny and media bias displayed by Obama's campaign, the DNC and the media. These are the people who refuse to reward this kind of uncivility.


p.s. the Michelle Obama tape is completely false. She would never use the word or phrase "whitey". Step out of your West Virginia mindsets and open your eyes.

http://publiuspundit.com/snob.jpg


And one more thought: was last night the first time a candidate in 2nd place did not concede after the front runner reached enough delegates to become the nominee?

Ted Kennedy was behind by several hundred delegates in 1980, but he never conceded and took it to the convention. Of course he lost, but he was praised for standing for his beliefs and being a fighter. FDR was nominated at the convention as well. There are other examples I am probably not remembering...


I thought it was pretty tactless and showed a real character flaw in Clinton. Does she ever reach a point when it is no longer Me Me Me Me?

I think it is pretty tactless for people to exhort her to drop out even though the nomination vote does not officially occur until the August convention. And in a race this close, the tide can swing rapidly in either direction, and the superdelegates have the right to change their minds until the convention. The fact is, no matter how you tabulate it, Hillary won the popular vote and was bamboozled out of delegates by the May 31 RBC results. There has never been a race this close in the history of primary elections, yet the media would have you believe that Obama won in a landslide, which is untrue because a) he technically hasn't won and b) he won more pledged delegates, but she won more votes. I believe that Hillary supporters are today every bit as upset as Gore supporters in 2000. And even to this day Gore is still getting grief for conceding the election.

[HejiraNYC]

Also - I love Aussie beef!

I knew you were a Hugh Jackman fan. :eek:

[dontlookdown]

Hillary's Soviet-style popular vote count conveniently doesn't include caucus states - which is absurd.
I know of plenty of people in Colorado (some of whom voted for Hillary) and voting was a big deal for them.
I'm sure they would feel just as disenfranchised knowing their votes don't count in Hillary's mind as do the people that thought they would not have an official say in Michigan and Florida.
And just the idea that Hillary is OK with the Michigan votes going toward her "popular vote count" when Obama wasn't on the ballot, is yet another indication of her flawed character and the poor parenting she got as a kid.
There are no rules for the Clintons when they're not the winners.

I know we've been dumbed down as a country for the last 8 years, but I hold my elected officials to a higher standard.

[strandinthewind]

. . . I know we've been dumbed down as a country for the last 8 years . . . .

I wouldn't extend that logic to the country :p

[strandinthewind]

. . . And just the idea that Hillary is OK with the Michigan votes going toward her "popular vote count" when Obama wasn't on the ballot, is yet another indication of her flawed character and the poor parenting she got as a kid . . . .

Actually, Hillary was pushing for Michigan to revote with Obama on the ticket - he refused, likely because he knew he'd lose :shrug: Ditto with Florida. So much for every vote counts, not to mention pissing off two huge electoral states that often swing elections.

[LukeA]

Actually, Hillary was pushing for Michigan to revote with Obama on the ticket - he refused, likely because he knew he'd lose :shrug: Ditto with Florida. So much for every vote counts, not to mention pissing off two huge electoral states that often swing elections.

Florida & Michigan broke the rules, and they have to live with the consequences. Its as cut and dry as anything can be. Call it what it is- the Democratic party shooting itself in the foot once again.

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I'm objective & mature enough to call a spade a spade and not make an argument for/against a candidate in the process.

[strandinthewind]

I knew you were a Hugh Jackman fan. :eek:

Or Eric Bana:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/strandinthewind/eric_bana_530.jpg

[strandinthewind]

Florida & Michigan broke the rules, and they have to live with the consequences. Its as cut and dry as anything can be. Call it what it is- the Democratic party shooting itself in the foot once again.

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I'm objective & mature enough to call a spade a spade and not make an argument for/against a candidate in the process.

1. Se Herija's post above for an explanation of how the rules were selectively applied.

2. I agree that if FL and MI knew the consequences and the R's had no hand in it (see above), then the hell with them.

3. The logic of #2 likely will result in the D's losing those states. The D's clearly knew that consequence when then ruled the first and second times.

4. I think the far better result would have been to allow FL and MI to revote with everyone on the ballot, thereby allowing all voices to be heard.

These arguments are wildly different than supporting on candidate over another and I'd make the same argument if W had been the victim.

[trackaghost]

I say America is the undisputed leader of the world because that is a fact. What other country provides the aid America does? Who do nations run to first? Who usually is first to provide aid? What other country leads like America does? So, factually, I am correct. If not - let's see the proof. So, whether people see that as arrogant is beside my point here. Though, I made the point earlier that I think people resent America for having that position. Is it the saying of it that pisses people off or seems arrogant - I guess so.

In the end, I think at times that America would be better off stopping all aid and going back to isolationism. Then, who would hate us. Likely, I suggest, even more people. So, America cannot win for losing so to speak.

Here is a cool article on the progession of America's leadership in the world:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6807/wleader.html

Honestly Strand, you don't need to treat me like an idiot by posting articles. I'm not disputing America's standing in the world, that would be foolish, it's the superiority complex that goes along with it. Personally I believe as one of the richest nations in the world the US (and the UK) has a duty to do those things.

[strandinthewind]

Honestly Strand, you don't need to treat me like an idiot by posting articles. I'm not disputing America's standing in the world, that would be foolish, it's the superiority complex that goes along with it. Personally I believe as one of the richest nations in the world the US (and the UK) has a duty to do those things.

I did not think I was treating you as an idiot (which I think you are not BTW) :sorry:

I posted that article (as I always do) because it supported my point. I was not talking about the thing you call the superiority complex. I do not really agree with that notion 100% in that I think anytime someone says America is the world leader (or whatever) some people assume it is said with that superior tone - I was explainig that I was saying it matter of factly. That is all.

Sorry for any offense.

I also agree that the richest nation has an obligation and I submit we meet that obligation in both public and personal donations and time. I mean if it were not for America, most of Europe would be speaking German (either in 1918 or 1941) :shrug: Yet, when I say that fact, people hate it. What they should be is thankful :shrug:

[estranged4life]

Hmmm, I wonder if I can auction off the right to my vote on eBay to the STUPID party who has enough $$$$ to secure my WORTHLESS vote??? :thumbsup:

With the main choices these days for presiDUNCE of the United States of Greed - it is almost like being asked (Repeatedly) if you want a scoop of the TWO only available flavors of ice cream, Chocolate or Vanilla...Me myself, being an INDEPENDENT voter in this joke country where only Demo-Gods and reTHUGblicans matter, I prefer Butter Pecan because the other two flavors were only good when I didn't know OTHER FLAVORS existed.

Brian "Baskin Robbins" j.

[The Catdancer]

I did not think I was treating you as an idiot (which I think you are not BTW) :sorry:

I posted that article (as I always do) because it supported my point. I was not talking about the thing you call the superiority complex. I do not really agree with that notion 100% in that I think anytime someone says America is the world leader (or whatever) some people assume it is said with that superior tone - I was explainig that I was saying it matter of factly. That is all.

Sorry for any offense.

I also agree that the richest nation has an obligation and I submit we meet that obligation in both public and personal donations and time. I mean if it were not for America, most of Europe would be speaking German (either in 1918 or 1941) :shrug: Yet, when I say that fact, people hate it. What they should be is thankful :shrug:

Have to correct you there, Strand. True, the Americans liberated Europe along with the Canadians and the Brits. My Grandparents and my parents both lived through the wars and I grew up listening to their stories. It wasn't just the Americans in WW2. I don't think people hate the fact that you guys liberated Europe, but they hate the fact you don't give any other country credit.

[rubytuesday]

II mean if it were not for America, most of Europe would be speaking German (either in 1918 or 1941) :shrug: Yet, when I say that fact, people hate it. What they should be is thankful :shrug:

wow! What the other person said! I mean do you even realise that D-Day involved 5 beaches, 2 American, 2 British and 1 Canadian. Anyway most of Europe would be speaking german if it wasn't for the USSR but I've never heard a Russian recite that rubbish, that I should be grateful to them. Nobody seems to give them credit but they don't go around asking for it like Americans seem to.

[strandinthewind]

England (which included most of Canada), Russia, and France were losing the war. The US and her 12,000,000 + troops stepped in and the tide turned. I get that it was a gbroup effort. But, clearly the injection of the US' armed forces turned the tide. But, you are correct in saying that it was not just the US not matter how much the US' help was needed.

But, I readily give it up for Canada for joining the war in 39. It took a big sac becasue Canada was uprepared for war. It had a regular army of 4500 men, augmented by 51,000 partly-trained reservists, possessed virtually no modern equipment, the air force had fewer than 20 modern combat aircraft while the navy’s combat potential consisted of only six destroyers, the smallest class of ocean-going warships. So, kudos to that brave, brave country!!!!!!!! I do not slight them at all.

[strandinthewind]

wow! What the other person said! I mean do you even realise that D-Day involved 5 beaches, 2 American, 2 British and 1 Canadian. Anyway most of Europe would be speaking german if it wasn't for the USSR but I've never heard a Russian recite that rubbish, that I should be grateful to them. Nobody seems to give them credit but they don't go around asking for it like Americans seem to.

Next time we should opt out - Again, it was a group effort, but without the US, the defeats likely would have continued. If you really think the entry of the US in WWII (and WWI for that matter) did not turn the tide and allow Europe and Southern Asia to obtain a victory, then I suggest you are re-writing history.

And - Stalin was such a great guy :rolleyes: With all due respect, the time period from 1945 - 1987ish was hardly a time for Russians to speak freely about anything. But, yes, Russia (like the other allies) played a significant part in WWII, at least on the Eastern Front. But, yes, you should be thanking Russia as well, though likely not for the Iron Curtain which fell shortly thereafter.

I am just curious, do you not acknowledge that America is a world leader (likely the largest) and that Amercia does huge acts of charity across the globe. Or is it just that I am acknowledging that fact that bugs you?

[rubytuesday]

Next time we should opt out - Again, it was a group effort, but without the US, the defeats likely would have continued. If you really think the entry of the US in WWII (and WWI for that matter) did not turn the tide and allow Europe and Southern Asia to obtain a victory, then I suggest you are re-writing history.

And - Stalin was such a great guy :rolleyes: With all due respect, the time period from 1945 - 1987ish was hardly a time for Russians to speak freely about anything. But, yes, Russia (like the other allies) played a significant part in WWII, at least on the Eastern Front. But, yes, you should be thanking Russia as well, though likely not for the Iron Curtain which fell shortly thereafter.


I am just curious, do you not acknowledge that America is a world leader (likely the largest) and that Amercia does huge acts of charity across the globe. Or is it just that I am acknowledging that fact that bugs you?

Course I do but you can't claim everything. So you're giving in to say that yes Russia played a significant part but you won't back down that it's due to America that we're all free of Nazi's? Come on. Russia was up at 4am, digging the path,pouring the cement, laying the bricks, and America comes along in the early hours of midday and sweeps through helping to finish off what Russia simply didn't have the numbers to do. Nobody is denying what America did but it this claim that we'd all be speaking German like we owe America something when if you look at it from outside of an American perspective then you'd see how we don't owe anything or if we do we owe numerous nations who don't go around tooting there own horn like americans do.

It's like in cricket when someone gets caught out they are acknowledged as having performed their task perfectly but it's the bowler that is said to have taken the wicket 'cause they set up the shot. You're acting like you not only took the wicket but took out the whole team 'cause you caught another bowler's ball. And then you wonder why you're booed off the field.

[strandinthewind]

. . . So you're giving in to say that yes Russia played a significant part but you won't back down that it's due to America that we're all free of Nazi's? Come on. Russia was up at 4am, digging the path,pouring the cement, laying the bricks, and America comes along in the early hours of midday and sweeps through helping to finish off what Russia simply didn't have the numbers to do. Nobody is denying what America did but it this claim that we'd all be speaking German like we owe America something when if you look at it from outside of an American perspective then you'd see how we don't owe anything or if we do we owe numerous nations who don't go around tooting there own horn like americans do.

It's like in cricket when someone gets caught out they are acknowledged as having performed their task perfectly but it's the bowler that is said to have taken the wicket 'cause they set up the shot. You're acting like you not only took the wicket but took out the whole team 'cause you caught another bowler's ball. And then you wonder why you're booed off the field.

Once again, the allies, as a whole were failing, though Russia was, for the most part, finally holding her own on the Eastern Front, which was only one part of the war.

The fact remains that if America and her millions of troops had not fought in Europe, Germany would have conquered France (he sort of had already) and likely England, which he was bombing to bits in The Blitz (7th September 1940 to New Year's Day 1941). Remember, nothing going on in Europe at that time was really any of America's concern, though Hitler was an evil person. America's beef was with Japan. Remember, Anerica declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941. On December 11, Hitler and Mussolini declared war on America and the U.S. Congress responded in kind on December 11,1941. I just do not see how you can argue that the infusion of the US' 12 million + troops did not turn the tide and save the day :shrug:

So, yes, Europe does owe America a "thank you" and they often give it. Also, I do not see America as a nation constantly asking for it. I brought it up in the context of this thread to demonstrate that America is a significant world presence. Interestingly, Russia emerged from WWII as a superpower as well, but since, like France, has mostly lost it. England and America are, for the moment, the only true super powers in the sense that they provide aid and try, for the most part, to keep the peace, with the possible exception of Iraq. I suppose most of the world now works through the UN, which is scary considering how corrupt we learned that institution is/was.

[rubytuesday]

The fact remains that if America and her millions of troops had not fought in Europe, Germany would have conquered France (he sort of had already) and likely England, which he was bombing to bits in The Blitz (7th September 1940 to New Year's Day 1941). Remember, nothing going on in Europe at that time was really any of America's concern, though Hitler was an evil person. America's beef was with Japan. Remember, Anerica declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941. On December 11, Hitler and Mussolini declared war on America and the U.S. Congress responded in kind on December 11,1941. I just do not see how you can argue that the infusion of the US' 12 million + troops did not turn the tide and save the day :shrug:

You can replace that with the USSR and again say that Germany would have conquered Europe. The point being that we're not being constantly reminded of how great they are by Russians tooting their own horn.

Remember, nothing going on in Europe at that time was really any of America's concern, though Hitler was an evil person. America's beef was with Japan.

Exactly! So who was there fighting Germany? The invisible empire? America entered the film at the end and hurled it across the finish line but still always acts like it had the starring role, like it wasn't all set up for them. If america was fighting a war with whatever country you like for years then finally asked for support from another direction to combine and take down the enemy, there's no way america would let that other country dance about like they were heroes of the world we'd always be reminded of how it was america's war and their effort.

Fine whatever. WWII was betweeen Germany and the USA, nothing happened before then and the good old usa saved the world.

;) btw you don't need to explain what the blitz is to a british person.

[strandinthewind]

^^^

Western Europe was losing the war. Russia was holding its own on the Eastern Front, but showed no real interest in liberating France or saving England. In many ways it could not because something like 30 million people died on the Eastern Front and the Eastern Front involved more land combat than all other World War II theatres combined. Also, Russia was attacked by Hitler (Lebensraum in the East), the US was not.

In the end, the Russians and all the allies fought bravely and should be commended. By the same token, the US should also be commended for infusing the battle (which was being lost of the Western Front) with over ten million troops and powerful machinery. How is it a bad thing to acknowledge that?

Interestingly, the two countries with the most deaths were China - 3,800,000 military deaths and 16,200,000 civilian deaths, for a total of 20,000,000 . That is horrifying. Ditto for the U.S.S.R., with 10,700,000 military deaths, 11,400,000 civilian deaths, 1,000,000 Jewish Holocaust deaths , for a total of 23,100,000 dead. Those numbers sort of make todays "wars" seem irrelevant, which is equally as horrifying.

Also, I was noting the time line for the blitz was before the Americans came in.

[DavidMn]

Americans know how to grill a Porterhouse steak outdoors on the grill. Aussies do, too. But Europeans have it all wrong.

http://www.pastrywiz.com/dailyrecipes/images/588.jpgDamn, eating that would be almost better than sex.. Almost:laugh:

[HejiraNYC]

Florida & Michigan broke the rules, and they have to live with the consequences. Its as cut and dry as anything can be. Call it what it is- the Democratic party shooting itself in the foot once again.

The "rule" per the DNC Rules and Bylaws is that states that move up their primaries may be penalized by up to 50% of their delegation. It was the arbitrary "rule" cooked up by Donna Brazille last year that gave MI and FL 0% of their delegation. :rolleyes: Gee, it would seem like a decidedly partisan move by this "undeclared" superdelegate. :rolleyes: The Rules and Bylaws also indicate that the full delegation may be restored if each state repaired their violation and enter into compliance, i.e., a re-vote. MI, FL and Clinton were ready, willing and able to fund and perform a re-vote. Obama blocked this by running down the clock via legal wrangling. Yeah, that's a new kind of politician. :rolleyes:


Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I'm objective & mature enough to call a spade a spade and not make an argument for/against a candidate in the process.

Why don't you read the rules and bylaws before you determine what a spade really looks like.

[strandinthewind]

. . . It was the arbitrary "rule" cooked up by Donna Brazille last year that gave MI and FL 0% of their delegation. :rolleyes: Gee, it would seem like a decidedly partisan move by this "undeclared" superdelegate. :rolleyes: . . . .

Who just happens to be black.

[BombaySapphire3]

Who just happens to be black.

Right...and as of last year she was so clairvoyant that she predicted exactly what was going to come to pass when those two states jumped the gun on the primaries ..if she could see into the future that well she could have circumvented the disenfranchisement of voters in Florida in 2000 and put the kibosh om the entire Chimpco nightmare of the last seven and a half years.

[HejiraNYC]

Right...and as of last year she was so clairvoyant that she predicted exactly what was going to come to pass when those two states jumped the gun on the primaries ..if she could see into the future that well she could have circumvented the disenfranchisement of voters in Florida in 2000 and put the kibosh om the entire Chimpco nightmare of the last seven and a half years.


Oh please... she knew the deal. MI is chock full of "white working class voters" and FL is chock full of Jews, old ladies and Latinos- poison for their golden calf. Yet, when South Carolina moved up their primary, that was "okay." :rolleyes: Donna Brazille has simply discredited herself beyond any hope of repair.

[BombaySapphire3]

Oh please... she knew the deal. MI is chock full of "white working class voters" and FL is chock full of Jews, old ladies and Latinos- poison for their golden calf. Yet, when South Carolina moved up their primary, that was "okay." :rolleyes: Donna Brazille has simply discredited herself beyond any hope of repair.

Ever been to Detroit? Also as I recall there are probably as many black people in Florida as there are Jewish people and the vast majority of Latinos in FLA aren't even Democrats.

[HejiraNYC]

Ever been to Detroit? Also as I recall there are probably as many black people in Florida as there are Jewish people and the vast majority of Latinos in FLA aren't even Democrats.



From http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/may/09/florida-hispanics-now-lean-toward-democrats/


Overall, the number of (Florida) voters who identify themselves as Hispanic increased from 1.07 million to 1.18 million in that time.

Of those:

Democrats have increased their numbers by about 64,000, from 33.27 percent to 35.5 percent of the total. More than half the increase has come during this calendar year.

No-party and minor party members increased by about 41,000, from 28.49 percent to 29.28 percent.

Republicans have increased by about 7,500 but dropped from 38.24 percent to 35.22 percent of the total.

[BombaySapphire3]

From http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/may/09/florida-hispanics-now-lean-toward-democrats/





ok ..a slight majority of hispanic voters in FLA are repubs :laugh: but that is still different from any other state ..particularly out here where the latino population is overwhelmingly Democratic..all that aside though if Donna was that prescient she could have stopped the theft of the 2000 election.

[vermicious knid]

Democrats who won't vote for Obama are now being called "insane", with the added implication that most are racist. We can expect this type of treatment right up to November, with much indignation and self-righteousness towards such Democrats. Probably by people who never cared when Michelle Obama said she would have to think about voting for Hillary Clinton. And watch for people who put the responsiblity of fixing the rift all on Hillary Clinton, and ignore that one of Obama's advisors has already said that he will not do much in the way of "wooing Clinton supporters".

[strandinthewind]

. . . if Donna was that prescient she could have stopped the theft of the 2000 election.

If Obama, the עגל הזהב, had been running, she might have :wavey:

(couldn't resist :cool: )

[BombaySapphire3]

Democrats who won't vote for Obama are now being called "insane", with the added implication that most are racist. We can expect this type of treatment right up to November, with much indignation and self-righteousness towards such Democrats. Probably by people who never cared when Michelle Obama said she would have to think about voting for Hillary Clinton. And watch for people who put the responsiblity of fixing the rift all on Hillary Clinton, and ignore that one of Obama's advisors has already said that he will not do much in the way of "wooing Clinton supporters".

Well it is pretty crazy to jump ship and vote for McCain particularly when he has reached the limit of the average life expectancy for males in the U.S. and will likely choose a right wingnut as his running mate and while most of Obama's supporters would have voted for Hillary had she been the nominee a much higher percentage of Hillary supporters are willing to go over to the otherside..Kind of shows where their mindset was to begin with.

[strandinthewind]

Democrats who won't vote for Obama are now being called "insane", with the added implication that most are racist. We can expect this type of treatment right up to November, with much indignation and self-righteousness towards such Democrats. Probably by people who never cared when Michelle Obama said she would have to think about voting for Hillary Clinton. And watch for people who put the responsiblity of fixing the rift all on Hillary Clinton, and ignore that one of Obama's advisors has already said that he will not do much in the way of "wooing Clinton supporters".

Exactly - and Hillary is the selfish one :rolleyes:

I think that if the Obama camp is smart, they will realize:

1. Obama did not get many of the delegate vote by actual elections.

2. Hillary Clinton is a very good ally to have in that she's got tens of millions of votes that are waiting for her lead.

3. Obama may get the blacks vote, but he cannot win without a significant portion of the white, Jewish, and Hispanic vote in the main electorally relevant states and Hillary somewhat commands that crowd.

So, they better not get to high on the horse and piss her off. Hopefully, the neophyte has learned at least that.

[strandinthewind]

. . . and while most of Obama's supporters would have voted for Hillary had she been the nominee a much higher percentage of Hillary supporters are willing to go over to the otherside..Kind of shows where their mindset was to begin with.

And the stats to back that statement up are where?

I remember when it looked like Hillary might pull ahead, the Obama fans were singing the same song Hillary fans are now singing.

[strandinthewind]

Ever been to Detroit? Also as I recall there are probably as many black people in Florida as there are Jewish people and the vast majority of Latinos in FLA aren't even Democrats.

Um --

Michigan is mostly white (about 83% http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan ) -- in in recent years, it votes D (17 electoral votes) :shrug:

[BombaySapphire3]

And the stats to back that statement up are where?

.

by Frank Newport
PRINCETON, NJ -- A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.



These conclusions are based on an analysis of Democratic voters' responses to separate voting questions in March 7-22 Gallup Poll Daily election tracking. In each day's survey, respondents are asked for their general election preferences in McCain-Clinton and McCain-Obama pairings. Democratic voters are then asked whom they support for their party's nomination.

The accompanying graph displays the results of the relationship between support for the Democratic Party's nomination and the general election vote between Obama and McCain.

sorry I couldn't paste the graph but you can get the idea.

[BombaySapphire3]

If Obama, the עגל הזהב, had been running, she might have :wavey:

(couldn't resist :cool: )

oh come now ..She was Al Gore's campaign manager!:laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Obama was 19% to Hillary's 28%, which I submit is not that large of a difference. Also, this was at the end of March. I wonder if it has changed a la those people who said they were moving to Europe if W got elected again, which he did and they are still here. But, touche' my friend!

I truly wonder how much of it is sour grapes (surely that is out there) on the part of the Clinton voter and how much of it is Obama lacks experience, etc.

[strandinthewind]

oh come now ..She was Al Gore's campaign manager!:laugh:

and look at how that turned out :eek:

Seriously, I think she was intrumental in ridding Obama of FL and MI, where I submit he would have lost the D primary. The facts rather suggest that.

[strandinthewind]

McCain and Obama: a stark matchup By Linda Feldmann
Thu Jun 5, 4:00 AM ET

The contrasts could not be more stark: an African-American Democrat versus a white Republican. The latter old enough to be the father of the former. One with no military experience, the other with a long Navy career punctuated by a harrowing period of captivity in a Hanoi prison camp. One with a soaring rhetorical style that can light up a sports arena, the other more comfortable in the back-and-forth banter of a town-hall meeting.

Then there are the policy differences between the two presumptive major-party nominees for president. John McCain (R) is one of the Senate's most outspoken supporters of the Iraq war, while Barack Obama (D) has opposed it from the start. Senator McCain wants big tax cuts and less government spending; Senator Obama wants tax breaks targeted at the middle class and greater government involvement in job creation. On healthcare, McCain emphasizes consumer choice and market forces, while Obama favors government action that puts the nation on track toward universal coverage.

As the 2008 general election campaign kicks off, one point is already certain: The outcome will be historic. America will elect either its first African-American president or its oldest first-term president. But just as striking as their differences is a key similarity. Neither was the first choice of their party establishment for the nomination, and both have promised "a different kind of politics" from the highly partisan, divisive wrangling that has come to mark Washington for the past 20 years.

Both men hold appeal among independent voters – about a third of the electorate – and whoever wins a majority of them wins in November. So while both candidates must hold onto the bulk of their party regulars, they will also play to the nonideological center in a way that the nominees didn't in the last two presidential races.

Still, for McCain, the anti-Republican headwind he faces cannot be underestimated.

In any analysis of the 2008 race, "you start with the already-well-described Democratic advantage this time around, beginning with unhappiness over the war and the economy," says Bruce Buchanan, a political scientist at the University of Texas, Austin.

President Bush's abysmal job approval ratings also don't do McCain any favors. Even if Bush were doing reasonably well, history would still point toward a Democrat in 2008. Rarely is a two-term president succeeded by the nominee of his own party.

Generic polls show Americans preferring, with no names attached, a Democratic president to a Republican by a double-digit margin.

But McCain's image of independence and working across the aisle gives him a shot in November. So far, he is holding his own in polls versus Obama.

One of the great unknowns is the race factor. With no historical precedents for a nonwhite nominee, it is impossible to predict how or where Obama's race will affect his chances.

While McCain faced some grumbling among key GOP constituencies when he locked up the party nomination – particularly among movement conservatives and evangelical voters – Obama, too, must unify his party after a divisive primary season. He will need the support of the working class, older, and Hispanic voters that flocked to Hillary Rodham Clinton, and thus how she ends her candidacy and whether she works hard for Obama's election loom large over Obama's chances.

Party strategists warn against making too much of the intraparty squabbling.

"I think both candidates will get 80 percent of their party's voters at the end of the day," says Bill Carrick, a Democratic strategist based in Los Angeles.

"After eight years of George Bush, I just don't think Democrats will be voting for Republicans," says Mr. Carrick. "And when things calm down, they'll recognize that it's in the Democrats' best interest to elect Senator Obama. And Republicans will have the same feeling about McCain."

This leaves the moderates and the independents as the battleground. McCain is already trying mightily to distance himself from Bush, appearing in public with him as little as possible and pointedly criticizing his administration for its blunders, such as the handling of hurricane Katrina and what McCain saw was mishandling of the early years of the Iraq war.

McCain is also seizing opportunities to highlight his policy differences with Bush, such as his support for limits on greenhouse-gas emissions that the Bush administration resisted.

But every time the debate comes back to Iraq, McCain risks looking in lock step with Bush. McCain was a big proponent of last year's "surge" in US troop presence in Iraq, and so his complaints of the handling of the war have diminished.

Going forward, the mantra that Obama introduced first – change – will now be the theme of both campaigns. From the McCain camp, the question will be whose change do voters want, the change that a "maverick," experienced leader can bring, or the change that a young man who just four years ago was a state senator in Illinois can bring.

From the Obama camp, the emphasis will be on judgment over years of Washington experience.

During the primaries, Senator Clinton failed to gain serious traction over her highly debated advertisement asking voters whom they would want answering the phone at 3 a.m. In fact, analysts say, it may have only served to point to McCain as the most experienced candidate on national-security matters.

But even there, as polls show Americans more concerned about the economy than about Iraq or terrorism, McCain starts his general election run with a big anchor around his legs.

"He's in a tough situation, McCain, given that the major issues are going to be economic and that these issues do favor a Democratic candidate," says Stephen Wayne, a political scientist at Georgetown University.

"McCain can campaign if he wants on national-security grounds, but unless there's a change in the international environment and a perceived threat to the US, I don't know where that's going to get him."

McCain's admitted weakness on economic matters could be helped by selecting a running mate with a strong reputation on economics and finance, such as former Rep. Rob Portman (R) of Ohio, also Mr. Bush's former budget director, or Mitt Romney, ex-governor Massachusetts and a wealthy businessman.



Copyright © 2008 The Christian Science Monitor


Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

[HejiraNYC]

ok ..a slight majority of hispanic voters in FLA are repubs :laugh: but that is still different from any other state ..particularly out here where the latino population is overwhelmingly Democratic..all that aside though if Donna was that prescient she could have stopped the theft of the 2000 election.

I don't think anyone could have anticipated the "voting irregularities" in Florida except for Jeb Bush and the other perpetrators who rigged the system. This time around, it wasn't a matter of prescience, as much as it was being on the cc: list of the memo sent by Dean and Pelosi. :rolleyes:

[HejiraNYC]

Well it is pretty crazy to jump ship and vote for McCain particularly when he has reached the limit of the average life expectancy for males in the U.S. and will likely choose a right wingnut as his running mate and while most of Obama's supporters would have voted for Hillary had she been the nominee a much higher percentage of Hillary supporters are willing to go over to the otherside..Kind of shows where their mindset was to begin with.

I think McCain's dream VP candidate should be someone who is a fiscally conservative financial powerhouse, far removed from Bush and a popular politician from a big state. That would be Mayor Bloomberg!!! I think Bloomberg could realistically deliver NY for McCain, which basically locks up the presidential election. Bloomberg's achievements in New York City are real and profound.

By contrast, McCain is toast if he chooses an evangelical wingnut like Huckabee. And even Romney, despite his credible pol experience, will not be able to shake off the Mormon thing.

[dontlookdown]

To support Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate, is to support a progressive agenda and a progressive platform. She would have been our first truly progressive president.
To go from that to supporting John McCain is ludicrous and simply points out that you were never really that interested in Clinton's policies - just her personality.
Senator Obama's platform is about as identical to Clinton's as you can possibly get in politics.
If it's issues you're concerned about than you should be very enthusiastic about a President Obama.
From a foreign policy perspective alone, the difference is night and day. Obama will be good for our relationship with Russia, Latin America, Asia, and the middle East. He will implement the same exact change that Hillary Clinton would have. Time to put the anger and fear aside and support Obama.

[BombaySapphire3]

To support Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate, is to support a progressive agenda and a progressive platform. She would have been our first truly progressive president.
To go from that to supporting John McCain is ludicrous and simply points out that you were never really that interested in Clinton's policies - just her personality.
Senator Obama's platform is about as identical to Clinton's as you can possibly get in politics.
If it's issues you're concerned about than you should be very enthusiastic about a President Obama.
From a foreign policy perspective alone, the difference is night and day. Obama will be good for our relationship with Russia, Latin America, Asia, and the middle East. He will implement the same exact change that Hillary Clinton would have. Time to put the anger and fear aside and support Obama.

Here ! Here ! I can't understand it that some people's political ideaologies could change with the wind so easily mine have been pretty constant since before I was even old enough to vote and I have been voting since the 1980 California primary which happened to fall on my 18th birthday .I have never strayed from the progressive agenda in all that time and I'll be damned if I do it this year.

[strandinthewind]

Here ! Here ! I can't understand it that some people's political ideaologies could change with the wind so easily mine have been pretty constant since before I was even old enough to vote and I have been voting since the 1980 California primary which happened to fall on my 18th birthday .I have never strayed from the progressive agenda in all that time and I'll be damned if I do it this year.

I think it is because people are frightened Obama cannot do the things he says, which I readily admit sound good and like good things to do. Obama has yet to explain in detail how he plans to achieve all of this and, to many, it sounds like pandering. Moreover, people see him saying all these great things and then surrounding himself with lobbyists and/or ex lobbyists (allegedly just along for the ride) just like every other politician. So, I do not think that every person not supporting Obama is doing so out of spite. I think some think he and his lack of real experience can hurt us far more than McCain's comparatively mild conservatism, with a D controlled Congress. Plus, he just seems sneaky to me and, apparently, others. These are legitimate concerns :shrug: I do, however, readily agree that anyone who will not vote for Obama solely because of sour grapes is not doing anyone any favors, save maybe for McCain.

[BombaySapphire3]

I think it is because people are frightened Obama cannot do the things he says, which I readily admit sound good and like good things to do. Obama has yet to explain in detail how he plans to achieve all of this and, to many, it sounds like pandering. Moreover, people see him saying all these great things and then surrounding himself with lobbyists and/or ex lobbyists (allegedly just along for the ride) just like every other politician. So, I do not think that every person not supporting Obama is doing so out of spite. I think some think he and his lack of real experience can hurt us far more than McCain's comparatively mild conservatism, with a D controlled Congress. Plus, he just seems sneaky to me and, apparently, others. These are legitimate concerns :shrug: I do, however, readily agree that anyone who will not vote for Obama solely because of sour grapes is not doing anyone any favors, save maybe for McCain.

I seem to recall a 46 year old Democratic candidate who was certainly sneaky(Jennifer Flowers) and not all that experienced himself once .I voted for him twice pretty much knowing what I was getting and was not in the least surprised when he tried to sneak in a bit on the side again..The silly puritanical production that this nation made of it was a worldwide embarrasment and it galls me majorly that a country could be preposterous enough to impeach someone overa BJ and not a litany of war crimes and abuse of the Constitution..and Clinton did turn out to be a decent President..Most of the Kennedys were worse rascals than he was and I adore them .No one is perfect and if I was looking for a Messiah I'd become a Christian.I believe we need to look at the issues facing us and the world and the terrible damage that has been done by two terms of The Chimp.Lets' put petty differences aside and give this man a chance.

[SteveMacD]

Obama should pick Jennifer Granholm to be VP. She is the governor of Michigan, which means she has executive experience, comes from a blue collar state, and is a female, which are the areas in which he's hurting badly. I wouldn't mind Hillary on the ticket, but realistically, if YOU were running for president, would YOU want your VP's spouse to be a former president?

McCain needs to pick J.C. Watts, former Representative from Oklahoma. He has an extensive conservative background and has done extensive religious work, both weaknesses McCain has with Republicans, and is black, which is the biggest weakness (disadvantage) McCain has in the general election. It effectively takes the race discussion off the table.

EDIT: Just noticed this is my 2500th post. I wonder if I get a used toaster or something?

[strandinthewind]

I seem to recall a 46 year old Democratic candidate who was certainly sneaky(Jennifer Flowers) and not all that experienced himself once .I voted for him twice pretty much knowing what I was getting and was not in the least surprised when he tried to sneak in a bit on the side again..The silly puritanical production that this nation made of it was a worldwide embarrasment and it galls me majorly that a country could be preposterous enough to impeach someone overa BJ and not a litany of war crimes and abuse of the Constitution..and Clinton did turn out to be a decent President..Most of the Kennedys were worse rascals than he was and I adore them .No one is perfect and if I was looking for a Messiah I'd become a Christian.I believe we need to look at the issues facing us and the world and the terrible damage that has been done by two terms of The Chimp.Lets' put petty differences aside and give this man a chance.

I think Clinton was different in that he was a Governor. But, Clinton's sneakiness with women is not the same thing as what I think Obama's sneakiness is. Rather, Obama reminds me of Cheney in several ways, which is scary. I could give a rat's a$$ about a bad boy.

[HejiraNYC]

To support Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate, is to support a progressive agenda and a progressive platform. She would have been our first truly progressive president.
To go from that to supporting John McCain is ludicrous and simply points out that you were never really that interested in Clinton's policies - just her personality.
Senator Obama's platform is about as identical to Clinton's as you can possibly get in politics.
If it's issues you're concerned about than you should be very enthusiastic about a President Obama.
From a foreign policy perspective alone, the difference is night and day. Obama will be good for our relationship with Russia, Latin America, Asia, and the middle East. He will implement the same exact change that Hillary Clinton would have. Time to put the anger and fear aside and support Obama.

I think your assertion that everyone's candidate selection is personality-based is ludicrous. For example, to take this to an extreme, if Adolph Hitler went around with a super progressive and liberal agenda and telling everyone what they wanted to hear, despite his Nazi ties, would you vote for him? I'm not saying that Obama is a Nazi, well, at least to the best of my knowledge. :p Issues are important, but so is a person's character, their experience, their reputation and their values. I am not going to buy a car that I haven't driven, so why should I choose a candidate that is so untested? I mean, anyone can make a Hyundai look like a Ferrari.

[HejiraNYC]

I wouldn't mind Hillary on the ticket, but realistically, if YOU were running for president, would YOU want your VP's spouse to be a former president?

If I had only 13 months of DC legislative experience, yes I would want Hillary to be my tutor.


McCain needs to pick J.C. Watts, former Representative from Oklahoma. He has an extensive conservative background and has done extensive religious work, both weaknesses McCain has with Republicans, and is black, which is the biggest weakness (disadvantage) McCain has in the general election. It effectively takes the race discussion off the table.


I'm not a big fan of "stunt casting" the veep slot. I think that's why a McCain ticket with Condi would seem decidedly condescending, just like an Obama ticket with Kathleen Sebelius would seem like pandering. It's almost saying, "hey, disenfranchised voter, I've got a token _____ on my ticket, so choose me!" But to be honest, I wouldn't put it past Obama to do something like that; he'll do or say anything to get a vote.

[HejiraNYC]

I think Clinton was different in that he was a Governor. But, Clinton's sneakiness with women is not the same thing as what I think Obama's sneakiness is. Rather, Obama reminds me of Cheney in several ways, which is scary. I could give a rat's a$$ about a bad boy.

Maybe it's his pasty complexion and moobies. :eek:

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/01/08/PH2007010801538.jpg

[strandinthewind]

I think that Condi would be a good choice because though I do not agree with her, I think she is highly intelligent and would not mind her a President because I think she would be easier on social issues than W or McCain. But, McCain will be seen as pandering if he selects her. I also think no black person (R or D) would dare get on McCain's ticket because deep down inside they want Obama to win. If I were black, I would. The milestone is too great.

[strandinthewind]

Maybe it's his pasty complexion and moobies. :eek:

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/01/08/PH2007010801538.jpg

Actually, he is not in bad shape :shrug:

[HejiraNYC]

I think that Condi would be a good choice because though I do not agree with her, I think she is highly intelligent and would not mind her a President because I think she would be easier on social issues than W or McCain. But, McCain will be seen as pandering if he selects her. I also think no black person (R or D) would dare get on McCain's ticket because deep down inside they want Obama to win. If I were black, I would. The milestone is too great.

Oh please, Alan Keyes would crawl on glass to be the veep.

[HejiraNYC]

Actually, he is not in bad shape :shrug:

He's doable enough... I guess. :shrug: He would be on anyone's short list. :p

[estranged4life]

McCain needs to pick J.C. Watts, former Representative from Oklahoma. He has an extensive conservative background and has done extensive religious work, both weaknesses McCain has with Republicans, and is black, which is the biggest weakness (disadvantage) McCain has in the general election. It effectively takes the race discussion off the table.

EDIT: Just noticed this is my 2500th post. I wonder if I get a used toaster or something?


with his newly founded television network, so I doubt he would be available.


No toaster either...I have been a member since June 7,2001 and I never received my toaster either :shrug: :D

[LukeA]

Oh please, Alan Keyes would crawl on glass to be the veep.

Alan Keyes = :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I do have to say, even in my darkest hours, all I have to do is think of Keyes & his krazy campaigns & beliefs, and I'm delirious from laughter.

[strandinthewind]

Oh please, Alan Keyes would crawl on glass to be the veep.

Smart A$$ :mad:

[gldstwmn]

And one more thought: was last night the first time a candidate in 2nd place did not concede after the front runner reached enough delegates to become the nominee?


No. It's happened before.

[gldstwmn]

I know of plenty of people in Colorado (some of whom voted for Hillary) and voting was a big deal for them.


We don't have a primary in Colorado. We have a caucus. Biggest bunch of bull**** this New England grown girl has ever seen.

[gldstwmn]

Or Eric Bana:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v602/strandinthewind/eric_bana_530.jpg

Wow! That is nice on the eyes.

[gldstwmn]

Oh please... she knew the deal. MI is chock full of "white working class voters" and FL is chock full of Jews, old ladies and Latinos- poison for their golden calf. Yet, when South Carolina moved up their primary, that was "okay." :rolleyes: Donna Brazille has simply discredited herself beyond any hope of repair.

Yep. Bary is her boo. :lol:

[gldstwmn]

I think McCain's dream VP candidate should be someone who is a fiscally conservative financial powerhouse, far removed from Bush and a popular politician from a big state. That would be Mayor Bloomberg!!! I think Bloomberg could realistically deliver NY for McCain, which basically locks up the presidential election. Bloomberg's achievements in New York City are real and profound.

By contrast, McCain is toast if he chooses an evangelical wingnut like Huckabee. And even Romney, despite his credible pol experience, will not be able to shake off the Mormon thing.

Bloomberg would make an awesome running mate for McCain. Not to mention he's a former Democrat.

[strandinthewind]

If we are talking about putting aside personal vindicationand/or disappointment and instead putting the interest of the D party first in line :shrug:

____________________________________________________________

Poll finds majority of Dems want Obama-Clinton ticket

Story Highlights
Poll shows 54 percent of Democrats want Hillary Clinton as VP candidate

43 percent of Democrats polled think Barack Obama should choose someone else

Women favor Obama-Clinton ticket by 60 percent; 51 percent of men oppose it

CNN/Opinion Research poll finds economy is most important issue to voters

From Paul Steinhauser
CNN Deputy Political Director
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A majority of Democrats think Barack Obama should select Hillary Clinton as his running mate, according to a new national poll.

Fifty-four percent of registered Democrats questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Friday think Obama should name his rival as his running mate; 43 percent disagreed.

The poll is the first national survey conducted since Obama claimed the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday night, at the end of the primary season. Clinton is expected to announce Saturday that she's suspending her campaign and backing her Senate colleague.

Men and women don't see eye-to-eye on the question. Sixty percent of Democratic women said Clinton should be Obama's running mate, but only 46 percent of male Democrats agreed, while 51 percent of them said no.

" 'What do women want?' Sigmund Freud famously asked," said Bill Schneider, CNN senior political analyst. "The answer appears to be Clinton on the ticket. It's pretty clear that many Democratic women are miffed and that Obama has to be very careful how he deals with Sen. Clinton." See the poll results »

Twenty-four percent of those polled said that even if Obama names someone else as his running mate, Clinton should try to override that decision at the Democratic convention in Denver in August. But 75 percent said that would not be a good idea.

"Democrats would like Barack Obama to choose Hillary Clinton as his running mate, but they seem to recognize that it is his choice to make," said Keating Holland CNN polling director. "Some will be disappointed if Obama does not pick Clinton, but not disappointed enough to want a floor fight at the convention." See some other Democratic vice presidential possibilities »

The survey also found that the economy remains the top issue in the minds of a plurality of Americans.

Forty-two percent of those polled said the economy will be the most important issue in their decision on the presidency. Iraq remains in second place, selected by 24 percent as the most important issue for them, while health care was selected as most important by 12 percent.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted Wednesday and Thursday, with 921 registered voters, including 435 registered voters who describe themselves as Democrats or independents who lean Democratic. The sampling error for most results is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/06/poll.obama.clinton/index.html

[gldstwmn]

I seem to recall a 46 year old Democratic candidate who was certainly sneaky(Jennifer Flowers) and not all that experienced himself once .

Obama is no Bubba.

[gldstwmn]

Maybe it's his pasty complexion and moobies. :eek:

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/01/08/PH2007010801538.jpg

That pic is sooo photoshopped. Obama was in town the other day. A strong wind would blow that dude away. He makes 70' era Mick Fleetwood look short and fat. :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

I think that Condi would be a good choice because though I do not agree with her, I think she is highly intelligent.

As in giving a wonderful piano recital intelligent yes. She sucks at foreign policy and should NEVER have been Secretary of State.

[gldstwmn]

Poll finds majority of Dems want Obama-Clinton ticket



I hope his campaign is smart enough to realize that they need her.

[BombaySapphire3]

I hope his campaign is smart enough to realize that they need her.

Like a hole in the head ..the baggage that the Clintons would bring to the bottom of the ticket would more than offset any gains from disgruntled Hillary supporters .Obama's campaign has been about change and the Clinton's do not represent that ..and if anyone questions that Obama and his campaign are not smart consider that he has just bested the finest political operative of his time and his wife at their own game ..I'm starting to feel a bit sorry for gramps..er maybe not.

[vermicious knid]

Hillary Clinton wants to change the way America consumes fossil fuels. She wants to change our health care system. She wants to change government's attitude toward the threat of global warming. Change treatment of gays from hostility to acceptance. Change the practice of private security firms operating outside the law. Change the resistance to science and the breakthroughs it could provide in stem cell research. Does this put her in violation of Obama's registered trademark of this word?

And "baggage" is a funny way to describe the assets brought by the candidate who was the people's choice.

[BombaySapphire3]

Ok Hillary can be an agent for change back in the Senate ..Barack will likely look elsewhere for his veep..I can't imagine he'd want the Clinton contingent and all that entails followimg him around for eight years..I don't hate the Clintons .I voted for Bill twice for chissakes ..I just believe it would be a mistake.

[strandinthewind]

Like a hole in the head ..the baggage that the Clintons would bring to the bottom of the ticket would more than offset any gains from disgruntled Hillary supporters .Obama's campaign has been about change and the Clinton's do not represent that ..and if anyone questions that Obama and his campaign are not smart consider that he has just bested the finest political operative of his time and his wife at their own game ..I'm starting to feel a bit sorry for gramps..er maybe not.


54% of D's disagree with you and they are the one's likely to be voting.

And, to say Hillary does not want to effectuate change is untrue. This is the woman who tried to provide healthcare to the masses in the 90's, but was shot down. Also, as noted above, her platform was all about change and how she was going to achieve that goal, which Obama has yet to set definite plans for. So, I see this as a win win, esp. considering everyone already knows Hillary's baggage and she still arguably won the popular primary vote or, at the least was neck in neck with Obama :shrug:

Personally, I think she should not be the VP because I think she is far more effective as a Senator. But, I am willing to go with the will of the D party.

[BombaySapphire3]

And, to say Hillary does not want to effectuate change is untrue.

ok maybe change was not the best choice of words..any Democrat would be a change from the abysmal administration that has been ruining the country these last 7 and a half years..I should have said something like "new blood" or 'fresh faces".The Clintons after all were in the White House for 8 years so the perception there is she is more part of the status quo.Hillary is certainly tough and a very sharp woman so those things are pluses.

[strandinthewind]

ok maybe change was not the best choice of words..any Democrat would be a change from the abysmal administration that has been ruining the country these last 7 and a half years..I should have said something like "new blood" or 'fresh faces".The Clintons after all were in the White House for 8 years so the perception there is she is more part of the status quo.Hillary is certainly tough and a very sharp woman so those things are pluses.

Touche' my friend :D

[David]

Why are Barack Obama's lips purple? Is he cold? Edward G. Robinson had the same problem. Bette Davis used to call him "liver lips."

http://www.bolenphoto.com/cigars/eddy.jpg

Beethoven did not have this problem. But his face was pockmarked & swarthy.

http://weta.org/fm/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/beethoven_7.jpg

[Stephanie]

I don't know now honestly. He really seems like a "sheep in wolves clothing" to me, and thats scary. But i will not be voting for osama obama (as i have heard him called):laugh: but then again, i dont know if our country can survive annother term of a republican president. Oh good lord, if only oprah had indorsed Hillary.


here, ill save you the trouble,blah, blah, your statements are so ignorant blah blah, obama rules, blah blah, grandpa mccain is a war vet.
-just save it.


I actually agree with you, believe it or not.

[Ghost_Tracker]

There was a commentator on tv Sunday morning saying that as far as V.P., it's not Hilary that needs to be appeased. It's Bill. To borrow a phrase from Stephen King, when it comes to Bill - there ARE hard feelings - - - ALL KINDS of them!

Apparently Bill C. feels that Obama and his campaign painted him out to be a racist, and that that perception could potentially damage the "legacy" he's trying to rescue. So if Obama does want to pick Hilary as his running mate, he's gonna have some fences to mend with Bill Clinton first.

[BombaySapphire3]

Apparently Bill C. feels that Obama and his campaign painted him out to be a racist, and that that perception could potentially damage the "legacy" he's trying to rescue. So if Obama does want to pick Hilary as his running mate, he's gonna have some fences to mend with Bill Clinton first.
It almost seems to me like Bubba was deliberately trying to sabotage Hillary's campaign .I would have thought he was waaaaay too smart to make those remarks about Jessie Jackson winning South Carolina twice in the 1980s.

[HejiraNYC]

Like a hole in the head ..the baggage that the Clintons would bring to the bottom of the ticket would more than offset any gains from disgruntled Hillary supporters .Obama's campaign has been about change and the Clinton's do not represent that ..and if anyone questions that Obama and his campaign are not smart consider that he has just bested the finest political operative of his time and his wife at their own game ..I'm starting to feel a bit sorry for gramps..er maybe not.

I would say that he squeaked out a win over the Clinton powerhouse, barely, despite the collusion of party insiders and the press, manipulation of caucuses and every low down and dirty campaign tactic. He's the Forrest Gump candidate as far as I am concerned. To be fair, he really should have completely decimated Hillary with all of the cards in his deck, but instead he lost the popular vote and had to get the party to select him despite the will of the people. Pathetic. :distress:

[HejiraNYC]

It almost seems to me like Bubba was deliberately trying to sabotage Hillary's campaign .I would have thought he was waaaaay too smart to make those remarks about Jessie Jackson winning South Carolina twice in the 1980s.

The pundits have been saying that the old Bill, i.e., pre-bypass surgery, would never have said these things. I don't know what to think... but apparently those kinds of major surgeries are pretty transforming.

Ultimately I don't think it was Bubba trying to undermine Hillary, as much as he naively underestimated the degree and ferocity to which Obama's camp would pull the race card. I think what he said about South Carolina was perfectly appropriate and factual.

[strandinthewind]

^^
Exactly -- I mean it is as if the Obama supporters are celebrating a landslide victry, which even Obama himself readily says it was not and referes to it instead as a hard fought battle, which it was.

As for Bill Clinton's SC comments, I believe they were factual in that Jesse Jackson did win SC. And, Bill Clinton was responding to the fact that both were black and both got the black vote, which also was factual. How is that racist? Or, are white people never supposed to noted what black people do unless it is in the context of pointing out that black people are oppressed? Give me a break. Interstingly, what if Obama had said, "like Jesse Jackson, on of the other pioneers in the advancement of black people in polotics - I won SC." Would that have been tied up as racist?

Of course Bill Clinton was pointing out that Jesse Jackson ultimately lost the nomination. But, that is not racist. It is a fact and he was drawing an analogy. Yet, the media pounced on it was whitey putting all the blacks in one basket. To me, that is BS.

The media also took it to mean that black voters will vote for a black candidate. He was doing that. And, he was correct (80%) in the case of SC :shrug: To be fair, Obama got many white votes as well. But, Clinton was pointing out that the black vote is heavily in favor of Obama.

[HejiraNYC]

Ok Hillary can be an agent for change back in the Senate ..Barack will likely look elsewhere for his veep..I can't imagine he'd want the Clinton contingent and all that entails followimg him around for eight years..I don't hate the Clintons .I voted for Bill twice for chissakes ..I just believe it would be a mistake.

Heaven forbid Obama would want any insight from the Clinton presidency or the bloc of female, Latino, Asian, and working class white voters that Hillary curated! Heck, he doesn't even need the youth or black votes! He was already hand-selected by the DNC, so perhaps they're busy trying to figure out a way to get the Supreme Court to select the president again- in his favor, of course. :rolleyes:

The fact of the matter is that Hillary is the gift that keeps on giving. Even on hiatus, her name keeps being mentioned like a summer re-run. She can pretty much make or break him now, and it's a no-win situation for him as it is. If he asks her to be VP, he will be seen as weak and contradicting his message of "change." Plus, the GOP will have a field day with Hillary's taped remarks about Obama's weaknesses and vice-versa. If he doesn't ask her, the party will remain divided and scores of women will refuse to vote or will vote for McCain in protest. And if he tries to put some token female on his ticket, like Napolitano or Sebelius, he will appear to be pandering to the female base. Bill "Judas" Richardson and Nancy Pelosi (who have basically sabotaged their own political careers forever) will never be forgiven by Hillary supporters and Edwards and Gore have already gone on record as not being interested. There are no other powerhouse names left. In the sum of all things, Hillary seems to be the lesser of all evils.

[strandinthewind]

^^^

I think Hillary can oversome the weaker candidate remarks by noting that she consistently said that although Obama is weaker than Hillary, both Hillary and Obama (alone or together) aree stronger than McCain, etc.

[HejiraNYC]

ok maybe change was not the best choice of words..any Democrat would be a change from the abysmal administration that has been ruining the country these last 7 and a half years..I should have said something like "new blood" or 'fresh faces".The Clintons after all were in the White House for 8 years so the perception there is she is more part of the status quo.Hillary is certainly tough and a very sharp woman so those things are pluses.

Maybe I'm just being irrational here, but if a return to peace, prosperity, balanced budgets and advances in civil rights is considered the "status quo," then I'm all for the status quo! **** change!

[HejiraNYC]

^^^

I think Hillary can oversome the weaker candidate remarks by noting that she consistently said that although Obama is weaker than Hillary, both Hillary and Obama (alone or together) aree stronger than McCain, etc.

Well, there is that notorious press conference where she said that she and McCain were experienced and capable of leading the country while Obama gave a nice speech in 2002. Those words cut deeply.

[strandinthewind]

Well, there is that notorious press conference where she said that she and McCain were experienced and capable of leading the country while Obama gave a nice speech in 2002. Those words cut deeply.

I missed that one. Do you have a youtube of it?

But, if she were with Obama, she could say something to the effect of yea I said that, but I am here now aren't I.

[strandinthewind]

Maybe I'm just being irrational here, but if a return to peace, prosperity, balanced budgets and advances in civil rights is considered the "status quo," then I'm all for the status quo! **** change!

I know. Bill Clinton was far from a perfect Pres. But, clearly the good far outweighed the bad :shrug:

[HejiraNYC]

Personally, I think she should not be the VP because I think she is far more effective as a Senator. But, I am willing to go with the will of the D party.

I think the VP slot, just like the First Lady slot, is whatever one wants it to be. There are pretty insignificant VPs like Quayle and Bush, but then there are VPs who are actually functionally closer to being president a la Cheney. With the Clintons as VP, I could totally see how there could be a Cold War-like power struggle in the Executive Branch. It's not easy to suppress "testicular fortitude." :lol:

I think Hillary's problem in the Senate is that there is already a long line for the Senate Majority leader slot (and that is assuming that the Democratic control of the senate persists). And as much as I would love to have Hillary as governor of my state, I think that would be a step down for her. In my opinion I think, despite Hillary's endorsement of Obama over the weekend, I think she is still hoping for a last-minute upset at the Convention in August. Sure, she's going to be a good girl and team player. But all it takes is one more major scandal or a major dip in the polls. Tony Rezko has yet to "sing," and many believe that he will start naming names in lieu of a long jail sentence. And then there is the Michelle "whitey" tape that is now rumored to be in Rudy Giuliani's possession and is expected to be released after the convention, that is, assuming that it can be kept under wraps for that long. But then again, there are rumors that party insiders don't really care whether or not Obama wins; they just like the fact that he can raise tons of money for the congressional races and enlist scores of new young and black voters.

[strandinthewind]

McCain cannot win without them, especially if the black vote turns out in record numbers to support Obama - same for the young white vote, which is sort of what happened in the primaries.

_________________________________________________________________

June 9, 2008

Evangelicals Are Still Wary Despite McCain’s Outreach

By MICHAEL LUO

Lori Viars, an evangelical activist in Warren County, Ohio, essentially put her life on hold in the fall of 2004 to run a phone bank for President Bush. Her efforts helped the president’s ambitious push to turn out evangelicals and win that critical swing state in a close election.

But Ms. Viars, who is among a cluster of socially conservative activists in Ohio being courted by Senator John McCain’s campaign through regular e-mail messages, is taking a wait-and-see attitude for now toward Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee.

“I think a lot of us are in a holding pattern,” said Ms. Viars, who added that she wanted to see whom Mr. McCain picked for his running mate.

Ms. Viars’s hesitation illustrates what remains one of Mr. McCain’s biggest challenges as he faces a general election contest with Senator Barack Obama: a continued wariness toward him among evangelicals and other Christian conservatives, a critical voting bloc for Republicans that could stay home in the fall or at least be decidedly unenthusiastic in their efforts to get out the vote.

To address this, Mr. McCain’s campaign has been ramping up its outreach to evangelicals over the last month, preparing a budget and a strategic plan for turning them out in 18 battleground states this fall.

The campaign has been peppering over 600 socially conservative grass-roots and national leaders with regular e-mail messages — highlighting, for example, Mr. McCain’s statement criticizing a May 15 decision by the California Supreme Court overturning the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, or his recent speech on his judicial philosophy. It has also held briefings for small groups of conservative leaders before key speeches. Charlie Black, one of Mr. McCain’s senior advisers, recently sat down with a dozen prominent evangelical leaders in Washington, where he emphasized, among other things, Mr. McCain’s consistent anti-abortion voting record.

Mr. McCain’s outreach to Christian conservatives has been a quiet courting, reflecting a balancing act: his election hopes rely on drawing in the political middle and Democrats who might be turned off should he woo the religious right too heavily by, for instance, highlighting his anti-abortion position more on the campaign trail.

“If McCain tried Bush’s strategy of just mobilizing the base, he would almost certainly fall short,” said John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. “Because the Republican brand name is less popular and the conservative base is restive, McCain has special needs to reach out to independent and moderate voters, but, of course, he can’t completely neglect the evangelical and conservative base.”

The instrumental role of evangelicals in Mr. Bush’s victory in 2004 over Senator John Kerry is an oft-repeated tale at this point. Mr. Bush’s openness about his personal faith and stances on social issues earned him a following among evangelicals, who represented about a quarter of the electorate in 2004. Exit polls in the 2004 election found that 78 percent of white “born again” or evangelical Protestants had voted for Mr. Bush.

In contrast, Mr. McCain’s relationship with evangelicals has long been troubled. In 2000, when he was running against Mr. Bush for the Republican nomination, Mr. McCain castigated Pat Robertson and the Rev. Jerry Falwell as “agents of intolerance.”

In a sign of the lingering distrust, Mr. McCain finished last out of nine Republican candidates in a straw poll last year at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, a gathering for socially conservative activists.

James C. Dobson, the influential founder of the evangelical group Focus on the Family, released a statement in February, when Mr. McCain was on the verge of securing the Republican nomination, affirming that he would not vote for Mr. McCain and would instead stay home if he became the nominee. Dr. Dobson later softened his stance and said he would vote but has remained critical of Mr. McCain.

“For John McCain to be competitive, he has to connect with the base to the point that they’re intense enough that they’re contagious,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “Right now they’re not even coughing.”

The balancing act Mr. McCain faces in appealing to both moderate voters and evangelicals was starkly illustrated last month when he rejected the endorsements of the Rev. John Hagee and the Rev. Rod Parsley, prominent evangelical leaders, after controversial statements by the two came to light. Mr. Parsley has been vocally anti-Islam and Mr. Hagee, in a sermon, said Hitler and the Holocaust had been part of God’s plan to drive the Jews to Palestine.

Mr. McCain’s actions complicated his relationship with evangelical leaders, some of whom said in interviews that the senator’s actions contributed to the impression among some evangelicals that he did not know or understand them. They argued that he should have stood by them, while making clear that he did not necessarily agree with all of their views.

“I think that was a stumble that will add to the challenges here,” said Gary Bauer, president of the group American Values, who in February became arguably the most visible evangelical leader to begin actively working on Mr. McCain’s behalf. “Those are both very influential men and it will just make things more challenging to accomplish between now and November.”

Unlike Mr. Bush, Mr. McCain is decidedly reticent about religion on the stump. Mr. McCain grew up Episcopalian and shifted to a Baptist church after marrying his second wife, Cindy, but has not been baptized into the denomination. When asked about his personal faith at town hall forums, he often relates a familiar story. When Mr. McCain was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, a guard who had once loosened his bonds while he was being tortured sidled up to him on Christmas Day and drew a cross on the dirt in front of them. But some evangelical leaders say the account sheds more light on the guard’s faith than on Mr. McCain’s.

Nevertheless, a small group of McCain staff members and surrogates have begun stepping up, largely behind the scenes, his outreach to evangelicals and other social conservatives.

The group includes Marlys Popma, a prominent socially conservative leader in Iowa who has been with the campaign since the beginning but about a month ago took on the title of national coordinator for evangelical and social conservative outreach; Robert C. Heckman, the campaign’s director of conservative outreach who was the political director of Mr. Bauer’s presidential campaign in 2000; and Brett O’Donnell, the campaign’s director of messaging who was a debate coach at Liberty University, Mr. Falwell’s institution.

Former Senator Dan Coats of Indiana, a graduate of Wheaton College, an evangelical school, is also playing an active role, as is Senator Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican and a longtime social conservative stalwart.

The initial outreach plans call for replicating the campaign’s approach in the Republican primary, creating “Family Issues Leaders for McCain” committees for each state made up of key social conservatives who have endorsed him.

About a dozen people, including staffers and socially conservative leaders who are advising the campaign, have begun a weekly conference call to plot strategy.

Mr. McCain’s advisers said they were in a talking and listening mode with evangelical leaders, as opposed to seeking endorsements aggressively, in part out of recognition that many Christian conservatives remained suspicious of him.

Mr. McCain may be aided by Mr. Obama’s own problems lately among religious voters. Mr. Obama, who speaks comfortably about his own Christian faith, was once seen as the kind of candidate who could help Democrats close the gap with Republicans among weekly churchgoers, who voted for Mr. Bush in droves in 2004. But those efforts have been complicated by the incendiary remarks by Mr. Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., and the comments by Mr. Obama at a fund-raiser in the Bay Area about people in small towns clinging to guns and religion.

Nevertheless, the Obama campaign plans to add a full-time evangelical-focused staff member to its existing religious outreach team and is rolling out an effort over the summer to organize over a thousand house parties built around an hour-and-a-half-long curriculum on faith and politics. With the broadening of the evangelical agenda to include issues like poverty, global warming and AIDS, Mr. Obama’s advisers hope to peel off more moderate evangelical voters.

David Brody, a political correspondent for the Christian Broadcasting Network, said he believed Mr. Obama’s comments had hurt his chances among evangelicals, but he added, “I think Obama has a great opportunity still, with the Jeremiah Wright controversy behind him, to re-introduce himself with the American people, especially with his spiritual walk.”

To make Mr. McCain’s case, his supporters highlight his speech on his judicial philosophy, in which he vowed to appoint judges with a “commitment to judicial restraint,” as well as his anti-abortion voting record, though his critics argue he has hardly been passionate about the issue over the years.

In 2006 Mr. McCain was featured in television advertisements supporting a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Arizona, but he argued vigorously against a federal ban on the Senate floor that year, breaking with Mr. Bush and the Republican leadership, citing his belief that states should decide the issue.

Many conservative activists revile Mr. McCain for his sponsorship of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance overhaul measure. Similarly, his support for federal financing of embryonic stem cell research puts him at odds with many conservatives.

Mr. McCain’s supporters, however, contend that if they simply outline Mr. McCain’s policy stances on issues that matter to social conservatives and make clear where Mr. Obama stands, the choice will be obvious.

“It’s my job to make sure the people out there in the leadership and the grass roots get a chance to know John McCain for what he really is,” Ms. Popma said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/09/us/politics/09mccain.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[strandinthewind]

I think the VP slot, just like the First Lady slot, is whatever one wants it to be. There are pretty insignificant VPs like Quayle and Bush, but then there are VPs who are actually functionally closer to being president a la Cheney. With the Clintons as VP, I could totally see how there could be a Cold War-like power struggle in the Executive Branch. It's not easy to suppress "testicular fortitude." :lol:

I think Hillary's problem in the Senate is that there is already a long line for the Senate Majority leader slot (and that is assuming that the Democratic control of the senate persists). And as much as I would love to have Hillary as governor of my state, I think that would be a step down for her. In my opinion I think, despite Hillary's endorsement of Obama over the weekend, I think she is still hoping for a last-minute upset at the Convention in August. Sure, she's going to be a good girl and team player. But all it takes is one more major scandal or a major dip in the polls. Tony Rezko has yet to "sing," and many believe that he will start naming names in lieu of a long jail sentence. And then there is the Michelle "whitey" tape that is now rumored to be in Rudy Giuliani's possession and is expected to be released after the convention, that is, assuming that it can be kept under wraps for that long. But then again, there are rumors that party insiders don't really care whether or not Obama wins; they just like the fact that he can raise tons of money for the congressional races and enlist scores of new young and black voters.

I seriously doubt that tape exists. The money it is worth seemingly would ensure it would have been produced. Moreover, if Wright had possession of it, why would sabotage a black candidate's changes in favor of a rich white republican. Finally, if more than one copy exists, people would be selling them and/or getting money for talking about them. Clearly Soros would pay millions to shut them up.

As for Rezko, I doubt he is much of a threat as even if it is true, he is a collar looking for a deal.

[HejiraNYC]

I seriously doubt that tape exists. The money it is worth seemingly would ensure it would have been produced. Moreover, if Wright had possession of it, why would sabotage a black candidate's changes in favor of a rich white republican. Finally, if more than one copy exists, people would be selling them and/or getting money for talking about them. Clearly Soros would pay millions to shut them up.

As for Rezko, I doubt he is much of a threat as even if it is true, he is a collar looking for a deal.

Well, I'm not sure what to think about the tape. The source of the information, Larry Johnson, is an ex-CIA agent who has a legit track record of uncovering dirt on the Valerie Plame scandal, the Iraq War and I believe the Spitzer scandal as well. He is basing his assertion on two independent second-hand sources who have provided consistent descriptions about the shocking contents of the tape. :shrug: There is also a theory that the local Chicago ABC News affiliate may have footage of this event in its archives, but apparently they are refusing to cooperate with any investigation without a subpoena. Sure, someone could probably come up with lots of hush money, but if it's true that Giuliani has the tape, then I am sure the GOP is keeping him honest one way or another. Plus Giuliani is not exactly hurting for money.

I think the Rezko conviction could be a sleeper surprise. He did receive lots of kickbacks and funding from the Illinois taxpayers, and some fingers are starting to point to Obama's influence in the state senate. And the whole situation regarding Rezko's role in the purchase of Obama's mansion has still not really been fully explained. The bottom line is that the man has been found guilty on 16 of 24 counts of corruption and faces a potential life term in prison. He has nothing to lose and everything to gain by singing. After all, hush money does you no good if you are behind bars.

[BombaySapphire3]

I would say that he squeaked out a win over the Clinton powerhouse, barely, despite the collusion of party insiders and the press, manipulation of caucuses and every low down and dirty campaign tactic. He's the Forrest Gump candidate as far as I am concerned. To be fair, he really should have completely decimated Hillary with all of the cards in his deck, but instead he lost the popular vote and had to get the party to select him despite the will of the people. Pathetic. :distress:

It seemed to me that Hillary entered the primary season as pretty much the guaranteed nominee of the party as it was pointed out to me on this forum by Hillary supporters last fall when I voiced my support for Obama with such statements as 'it ain't never gonna happen " in regard to Obama becoming the nominee.Obama's use of the internet for fund raising and being astute enough to understand the importance of caucus states contributed to him getting the nomination as well as I'll admit it the cult of personality .I also think it is tragically Medean for people that consider themselves Democrats to take their marbles amd go over to the other side considering what is at stake in Iraqi and the Supreme Court and the wingnut that an over 70 year old candidate is likely to choose as his V.P.

[BombaySapphire3]

He was already hand-selected by the DNC, so perhaps they're busy trying to figure out a way to get the Supreme Court to select the president again- in his favor, of course. :rolleyes:



Well after all we do owe them one.:laugh:

[gldstwmn]

The pundits have been saying that the old Bill, i.e., pre-bypass surgery, would never have said these things. I don't know what to think... but apparently those kinds of major surgeries are pretty transforming.



Unfotunately that info comes from that sleazy Vanity Fair article. I still can't believe they printed that.

[strandinthewind]

Special-interest access abounds in campaign By SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writer
Tue Jun 10, 3:39 PM ET



Barack Obama and John McCain are billing themselves as distant from special interests. It doesn't take a very deep look into their White House bids to see that's false advertising.

Presidential races tap into the same political circles that keep lobbyists employed and the revolving door spinning. Obama and McCain have a long way to go to free themselves of insiders and special interests.

Roughly one-third of 93 "Reagan alumni" who endorsed McCain have been or are registered to lobby, though McCain never said so. The Florida fundraising team for McCain and the Republican National Committee, announced last week, includes at least two Florida lobbyists: Fred Karlinsky is Florida counsel to the Property Casualty Insurers Association, which lobbies in Washington on consumer issues, disaster planning and insurance; the other, Thomas Panza, served on Florida business regulation and health care study commissions.

Obama's team in Nevada, put together last summer to help him with the state's January caucuses, included at least two Nevada lobbyists: one that represented Barrick Gold of North America, a mining company that also lobbies in Washington, and another whose clients included U.S. Airways, Corrections Corp. of America and consulting company Accenture, which lobby in Washington.

McCain's advisory committee on legal issues, announced last month, included at least nine lobbyists, but McCain didn't identify them as such. Instead, his campaign listed them with their former government positions. In addition, the committee has members with lobbying ties, included at least five partners in Washington law and lobby firms who weren't personally registered to lobby and three former lobbyists.

Obama accepted an endorsement from former Sen. Don Riegle of Michigan but never mentioned Riegle also is a Washington lobbyist whose clients include London-based metals merchant Norimet Ltd. and Geneva-based liquor distributor SPI Group SA.

McCain and Obama have each taken new steps to hold lobbyists — at least those in Washington — at arm's length. But such moves are incomplete, at best, for putting real distance between their campaigns and special interests. Many operate below the public's radar: Unless the advisers are paid staff or donors, the candidates are not required to identify them or their lobbyist connections.

Obama and the DNC announced Thursday the party will follow Obama's policy of turning away donations from Washington lobbyists.

Last month, McCain adopted a conflict-of-interest policy that drove some Washington lobbyists from his campaign. They included former Texas Rep. Tom Loeffler, a McCain fundraiser and adviser. Those on the campaign payroll have had to sever their lobbying ties; McCain adviser Charlie Black recently retired from the prominent Washington lobbying firm he helped found. Volunteers must tell the campaign if they are lobbyists and cannot take part in campaign policymaking on subjects on which they lobby; if McCain wins, those who join his administration must promise never to lobby it. The policy doesn't mention people whose companies or groups hire lobbyists.

To consort only with outsiders, McCain and Obama would have to accept help only from people who never worked in politics, wanted anything from government or worked for anyone who has.

They would have to shun leaders of their own parties. The Democratic and Republican national committees include well-known Washington lobbyists among their top officials.

DNC vice chairwoman Lottie Shackelford, a former Little Rock, Ark., mayor, is a lobbyist whose clients include Hyundai Motor Co., which is pressing on free trade issues with Korea that Obama opposes. She also has worked for the Sallie Mae student loan provider, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. and Allstate Insurance Co. Her firm boasts on its Web site of her "long-term relationship with American policymakers."

The lobbying clients of RNC vice chairman Frank Donatelli include the National Basketball Association, for whom he lobbied this year on steroids legislation, a tougher ban on Internet gambling, and immigration legislation that would guarantee work visas for minor-league players. Donatelli, executive vice president and federal public affairs director for McGuireWoods Consulting, worked for President Reagan and aided President Bush's 2000 Florida recount effort.

Other avenues for access abound. The well-connected take lead roles in organizing the upcoming nominating conventions. They raise money for the party and for candidates up and down the ticket, and for costly Inauguration Day galas in Washington. They take time off from their jobs to help get out the vote in battleground states. And they serve as advisers, paid or volunteer, to candidates who might invite them to advise the incoming administration.

McCain announced in January an ex-aide to presidential brother and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush agreed to help run "Lawyers for McCain" in Florida. Hayden Dempsey is a lobbyist with Greenberg Traurig, whose former star lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, was investigated by McCain when he was chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. Dempsey's state client list includes businesses that also lobby in Washington: the Amerigroup health-care company, MAXIMUS information technology firm and UnitedHealth Group insurance company.

Technology experts who endorsed Obama include Andrew McLaughlin, who lobbied Congress and the Bush administration on trade issues for Google Inc. last year with McCain donor and former McCain Senate chief counsel Pablo Chavez; and Ed Zander, chief executive of Motorola, an Illinois-based communications company that lobbies in Washington.

Lobbyists have made campaign appearances for McCain. They include former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating, chief executive of the American Council of Life Insurers and co-chairman of "Catholics for McCain." Another is former Navy Secretary William Ball, a Washington lobbyist whose client list includes Southwest Airlines, facing a record $10.2 million fine and congressional scrutiny over safety issues.

At least 17 lobbyists are among McCain's top fundraisers, including Jack Oliver III, a former national GOP official whose Washington lobbying list includes the Financial Services Forum, a group of banks and investment firms; and corporate giants Shell Oil Co., Verizon Communications Inc. and Union Pacific Corp. railroad.

Obama's biggest fundraisers include Charles Adams Jr., a partner in Hogan & Hartson, a law and lobbying firm active in Washington, and Michael Froman, who worked at the White House, Treasury Department and National Security Council and now works as an executive at Citigroup, which spent $8 million lobbying in Washington last year.

McCain's national campaign co-chairs include John Chambers, chief executive of Cisco Systems Inc., a technology company that spent $1.4 million last year lobbying in Washington on immigration, digital television, personal data privacy and security, patent legislation and trade issues. Another is former Homeland Security secretary and Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge, who now runs a Washington consulting firm and sits on the boards of several high-tech companies, some of them federal contractors.

The Democratic presidential race could be considered a dream come true for some lobbyists.

Those lucky enough to rank as Democratic "superdelegates" free to back the candidate of their choice at the party's nominating convention found the tables turned: Two senators, Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, needed their votes for a change, and for weeks courted superdelegates aggressively.

Superdelegates backing Obama include Joyce Brayboy of North Carolina, a Washington lobbyist and former congressional chief of staff whose clients include the American Bankers Association, Moneygram International money-transfer service and Recording Industry Association of America.

Obama superdelegate Moses Mercado of Texas, a former aide to then-Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., has been a lobbyist at the same Washington firm as Wayne Berman, who raised money for McCain. Mercado's client list at Ogilvy Government Relations includes the American Chemistry Council trade group; the American Petroleum Institute and Chevron, both with big stakes in energy policy; and the American Trucking Associations, whose priorities include highway funding and labor rules.

Shackelford, who lobbied Congress and the Bush administration on behalf of Hyundai, also lobbied for Lyondell Chemical Co. over discontinuing use of the gasoline additive MTBE, which helps prevent engines from knocking. MTBE's leading alternative is ethanol, which Obama supports. She is with the lobby firm Global USA, whose chairman, Stanton Anderson, lobbies for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform and is among Reagan alumni who endorsed McCain.

Another superdelegate, Robert Strauss of Texas, a former ambassador and Democratic National Committee chairman, founded the firm that became international law and lobbying giant Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. Its clients include the governments of Panama and South Korea, who want trade agreements with the United States that Obama opposes. Akin Gump also lobbied for Chinese oil company CNOOC, reaching out to McCain's staff and others on Capitol Hill as CNOOC unsuccessfully tried to win backing for its offer to acquire Unocal.

Lobbying interests and candidates can help each other without breaking the law. Openly promising goodies such as federal contracts, policy decisions or political appointments in exchange for campaign money could amount to a felony, but there are plenty of benefits to be had without illegal quid pro quos.

Candidates receive money and support, and lobbyists gain political experience and the access they need. For state-level lobbyists, a week with the state's convention delegation can mean valuable time with the governor and legislative leaders. And ties to a presidential nominee and other powerful politicians can be their own reward as lobbyists, trade associations and unions work to keep and attract clients or members.

Hunter Johnston, a Washington lobbyist who raised money for Sen. John Kerry's 2004 Democratic presidential campaign, said it's risky for candidates to say lobbyists do not and cannot work in their campaigns or future administrations.

"You're excluding a large number of very competent people," Johnston said. "If they do make a statement, then it's hard to live up to such a statement, and if you live up to such a statement, I don't think it's in their interests."

____

Associated Press writers Ted Bridis and Jim Drinkard in Washington contributed to this report

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080610/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_special_interests&printer=1;_ylt=AgHIgwA5qIUZqLuxuc5IBBFh24cA

[LukeA]

Well, I'm not sure what to think about the tape. The source of the information, Larry Johnson, is an ex-CIA agent who has a legit track record of uncovering dirt on the Valerie Plame scandal, the Iraq War and I believe the Spitzer scandal as well. He is basing his assertion on two independent second-hand sources who have provided consistent descriptions about the shocking contents of the tape. :shrug: There is also a theory that the local Chicago ABC News affiliate may have footage of this event in its archives, but apparently they are refusing to cooperate with any investigation without a subpoena. Sure, someone could probably come up with lots of hush money, but if it's true that Giuliani has the tape, then I am sure the GOP is keeping him honest one way or another. Plus Giuliani is not exactly hurting for money.

As much as you want this to be true, it certainly looks like its not.

www.fightthesmears.com

So sorry to disappoint you.

[BombaySapphire3]

Even CNN is reporting today that it was totally fabricated by the blogger then picked up by ol' pigface Rush and others ...despicable really.

[HejiraNYC]

Even CNN is reporting today that it was totally fabricated by the blogger then picked up by ol' pigface Rush and others ...despicable really.

Right, because CNN is perfectly objective and is not biased towards Obama in any way. :rolleyes: As I said, I don't know what to think. I am skeptical, but I'm not going to dismiss it outright because that pig face Roland Martin says it doesn't exist.

Anyway, don't be fooled... Obama is far from being some perfectly honest angel:

http://savagepolitics.com/?page_id=326

I'm just sayin'...

Also, on an unrelated note, a totally different potential bombshell drops on the National Press Club on June 18. Again, I don't know what to think... it could either end Obama's career or it could be the laughing stock of the year. The guy sounds like a whack job, but his story is luridly sensational. We shall see...

[BombaySapphire3]

Also, on an unrelated note, a totally different potential bombshell drops on the National Press Club on June 18. Again, I don't know what to think... it could either end Obama's career or it could be the laughing stock of the year. The guy sounds like a whack job, but his story is luridly sensational. We shall see...
Oh right that must be the Michelle Obama is really Michael Robinson Obama impending scandal I mentioned earlier!:wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Even CNN is reporting today that it was totally fabricated by the blogger then picked up by ol' pigface Rush and others ...despicable really.

Yea - either Obama is starting damage control (I am such a cynis :laugh: ) -- or, it is untrue. I think it is untrue and I am glad it is not as that is one less hate in the world. As for Rush L., what an a$$. This is a play straight from Rove. Highly popular people like Rush L. just say it couched in terms if "if it is true" and people accept it as fact and the damage is done. Obama is smart to take a play from Bill Clinton's book and address these things before they get too large, a la the Swift Boat fiasco that Kerry seemingly ignored until it was too late. I mean think about that example. Kerry actually went to Vietnam and Bush was all but MIA at his cushy job in the US and Bush got kicked out of being a pilot. If I had been Kerry, I'd of walked right up to W in the debates and called him a coward to his face and pointed out that I VOLUNTEERED to go to Vietnam while W's daddy got him a job here that he could not even successfully complete and that Cheney had "better things to do" than go to Vietnam. I think had Kerry done that, W would have had no response and that would have IMO shut that shiitte down on the spot.

[vermicious knid]

That blogger still maintains that the video exists, and that it features Michelle on a panel with Louis Farrakhan, and making racist generalizations. He used to work for the CIA and the Department of State, so if he is wrong, his reputation has a long way to fall. I think he will be shunned and never taken seriously again if this video never materializes. Which is certainly possible given that he says he hasn't seen the video himself. Whatever the truth is, we will all know it within a few months.

[BombaySapphire3]

Anyway, don't be fooled... Obama is far from being some perfectly honest angel:


I'd hazard a guess that just about any politician is far from being a perfectly honest angel..The most honest of the lot that ran for President this time IMHO is Dennis Kucinich..he just introduced articles of impeachment against Bush and it is to the shame of the Democratic congress that it was to a nearly empty House..now that is a man who doesn't falter from the right course and if he were the nominee I'd be cleaning out my savings accounts to contribute to him..as it stands though I'll settle for Obama.

[HejiraNYC]

I'd hazard a guess that just about any politician is far from being a perfectly honest angel..The most honest of the lot that ran for President this time IMHO is Dennis Kucinich..he just introduced articles of impeachment against Bush and it is to the shame of the Democratic congress that it was to a nearly empty House..now that is a man who doesn't falter from the right course and if he were the nominee I'd be cleaning out my savings accounts to contribute to him..as it stands though I'll settle for Obama.

I agree... I have great respect for Kucinich, but he is so far left that Obama looks like Nixon by comparison. I'm not sure where he stood on the economy, but he seems to be a man of unflagging integrity with a blind eye to gender, sexual orientation and race- the complete opposite of Obama in many ways.

[HejiraNYC]

That blogger still maintains that the video exists, and that it features Michelle on a panel with Louis Farrakhan, and making racist generalizations. He used to work for the CIA and the Department of State, so if he is wrong, his reputation has a long way to fall. I think he will be shunned and never taken seriously again if this video never materializes. Which is certainly possible given that he says he hasn't seen the video himself. Whatever the truth is, we will all know it within a few months.

http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/attachment.php?attachmentid=233&d=1212534169 :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

I'd hazard a guess that just about any politician is far from being a perfectly honest angel . . . .

I agree. However, perhaps it is the attempt of the media to paint him as such by giving him a free pass and slamming people like Clinton to the wal over a clear mistake about something like Bosnia and the billets. So she made a mistake - big deal. I agree they should have called her on it. But, they acted like she killed and ate her first born. Yet, Obama never got or gets that kind of scrutiny. It is all part and parcel of the same image of him the press and he portrays of him that rubs me the wrong way.

[HejiraNYC]

I agree. However, perhaps it is the attempt of the media to paint him as such by giving him a free pass and slamming people like Clinton to the wal over a clear mistake about something like Bosnia and the billets. So she made a mistake - big deal. I agree they should have called her on it. But, they acted like she killed and ate her first born. Yet, Obama never got or gets that kind of scrutiny. It is all part and parcel of the same image of him the press and he portrays of him that rubs me the wrong way.

Totally. I think the media totally missed the point about the Bosnia gaffe- whether or not there was sniper fire, she did go to Bosnia during a time of war, which is more than you could say about Obambi; at least she had the "testicular fortitude" to risk her wellbeing by going there. Meanwhile Obama fabricates the story of a fictitious relative who freed the Jews at Auschwitz in a pathetic attempt to pander for the Jewish vote, yet the media totally gave him a pass on it. I think exploiting the Holocaust to manipulate voters is absolutely disgusting and it was an intentional lie. But, hey, I guess I must be alone in feeling this way. :shrug:

[David]

Meanwhile Obama fabricates the story of a fictitious relative who freed the Jews at Auschwitz in a pathetic attempt to pander for the Jewish vote, yet the media totally gave him a pass on it. I think exploiting the Holocaust to manipulate voters is absolutely disgusting and it was an intentional lie. But, hey, I guess I must be alone in feeling this way. :shrug:No, I feel that way, too. But Jews are intelligent & see through such phony pandering.

[strandinthewind]

Here is an example of reverse racism. Obama can talk about all blacks viting for him and no one bats an eye. Let a white candidate say that all blacks are voting for Obama and that white candidate is a racist. Moreover, let a white candidate say that white people are voting for the white candidate and both the white candidate and the white voter are racist.
_______________________________________________________

Can Georgia Be Obama's Ohio? By JAY NEWTON-SMALL/WASHINGTON

Tue Jun 17, 9:45 AM ET


No one who has been following Barack Obama's upstart path to the Democratic presidential nomination should be surprised at his campaign's claim that he does not need to win Florida and Ohio to have a chance at winning it all in November. Obama has been pursuing an ambitious national strategy from the start.


"I'm probably the only candidate who, having won the nomination, can actually redraw the political map," Obama replied to a question about his strategy from a Concord, N.H., woman at a house party last August. Pacing around the old Victorian home, the wooden floor creaking, Obama went on: "I'll give you one specific example: Mississippi is 40% African American, but it votes 25% African American. If we just got the African Americans in Mississippi to vote their percentage, Mississippi is suddenly a Democratic state. And Georgia may be a Democratic state. Even South Carolina starts being in play. And I guarantee you African-American turnout, if I'm the nominee, goes up 30% around the country, minimum."


It was an extraordinary boast, five months before the start of the primary season. But he stuck to it as the race with Hillary Clinton wore on through the winter and spring. Whenever Clinton asserted that Obama couldn't win states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, he would respond by saying he could bring other states into play, especially in the South.


Now that he is the presumptive nominee, Obama is working hard to make good on his prediction. In briefings last week with former Hillary Clinton supporters, Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, said he is focusing on Georgia and Virginia as potential swing states and, depending on the outcomes of voter registration drives, he's also keeping an eye on Mississippi and Louisiana. In Georgia, the Obama campaign has wasted no time, launching massive voter registration drives before he the primaries had even ended. "By some estimates we have about 600,000 African Americans in Georgia are eligible but unregistered. I think that number is a little high, but we will be working very hard to register as many voters as we can before the election," said Jane Kidd, chairwoman of the Georgia Democratic Party. "Georgia is one of the most progressive southern states. There are a lot of people moving in, there's a lot of transition, a lot of progressives."


Obama has 15 full-time paid staffers who have been in Georgia for over a month. They also have had staff in North Carolina and Virginia and have been "literally moving in dozens of people every week to all three states," said Jon Carson, Obama's national field director. They also expect to have staff in Mississippi, Arkansas and Louisiana before the end of the month. "It's very hard to sit here right now to say what's going to happen in November... Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Montana, North Dakota, Missouri - which of those is going to be most winnable? So our campaign is taking the approach of casting a wide net."


Yet Obama faces an uphill battle in most of the South. Even if there is vastly increased black turnout, he still needs to draw a portion of white votes in states like Mississippi and Louisiana, where less than a quarter of whites voted for John Kerry in 2004. Though he may have a legitimate shot in Georgia, he currently trails McCain by a margin of 12.3 percentage points, according to an average of Georgia polls by the non-partisan website RealClearPolitics.com.


In 1992 Bill Clinton lost most of the Deep South, except for Georgia and his home state of Arkansas). In Georgia the third party candidacy of Ross Perot helped leach enough votes from President George H. W. Bush to deliver Clinton the state. This year the Libertarian candidacy of former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr could help Obama in much in the same way. "Georgia would be very much in play, even if I weren't in the race, and it will be even more so now that I am," Barr told TIME. Republican presumptive nominee John McCain "does not really have a natural constituency in Georgia. Certainly, he'll appeal to die-hard Republicans and certainly the military folks, but it's not a state, if I were advising his campaign, that I would focus on."


If Barr just wins his former district, to the west of Atlanta, he could sap more than 8% of the vote. A May Insider Advantage poll of likely Georgia voters showed Barr garnering just about that amount, to McCain's 45% and Obama's 35%. "I'm still not ready to call any of the Southern states probable for Obama," said Larry Sabato, a political science professor at the University of Virginia. "If the election were held now, I think McCain would hold on in all of them. But Obama is going to bury McCain in expenditures, and thus broaden the playing field in his favor, and if economic conditions don't improve rapidly, McCain's chances of winning the election are quite small."


Mike DuHaime, political director of the Republican National Committee, doesn't argue with Obama's fundraising advantage. But he disputes the notion that Obama can afford to keep throwing money at long shots once the campaign really heats up in the fall, and he contends that Obama's defense of vulnerable states like New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Ohio will be much more expensive. "It would take a major swing to swing these [Southern] states," says DuHaime. "I don't fault them for trying to expand the map, but we have better opportunities in other states that are just as big, if not bigger - Pennsylvania, Ohio, for example."


Yet McCain has shown some weakness in the South. During the primaries, he lost Georgia and much of the South to former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister. McCain has struggled to connect with Southern social conservatives, who are leery of his positions on issues such as global warming, campaign finance reform, immigration, domestic oil drilling and gay marriage. He's also gotten himself into trouble with high-profile Evangelicals like James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, who never warmed to the Arizona senator and has said he won't vote for him.


There is no question that Obama can turn out Southern blacks: African American voter participation in the 2008 Georgia primary, which Obama won by 36 percentage points over Clinton, increased 85% over the 2004 primary, for example. And there's lots of room to grow from the last general election; in 2004 just 54.3% of the 1,090,000 registered blacks in Georgia voted.


But black votes alone cannot win him Southern swing states like Georgia, according to David Bositis, senior political analyst at the non-partisan Joint Center, which tracks black voter trends. "In states that could potentially flip it isn't just about increasing black turnout. They have to be states where Obama can win a fairly significant portion of whites," Bositis said. In the Georgia primary Obama edged out Clinton among young white voters, but lost white voters over the age of 45 by more than 20 percentage points, according to CNN exit polls. Certainly, the idea of a black candidate winning the South appealed to those New Hampshirites last August - the Concord audience gave Obama's answer an ovation. But no one has to tell Obama that the North and the South don't always see eye to eye. View this article on Time.com

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080617/us_time/cangeorgiabeobamasohio&printer=1;_ylt=AkNoBlm2JmsyoHWe1imD5QPBF4l4

[vermicious knid]

When Hillary said that working class white people were choosing her, I read that she was "fanning new flames of racial tension". And she was equated to segregationist George Wallace and Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. I read that with my own eyes.

And then there was the firestorm over her blanket racial generalization she made on the Jimmy Kimmel show. Oh wait, there was no firestorm, because that was Barack Obama who said Asian people are short.

[BombaySapphire3]

What is the point of continuing to fan the flames of divisiveness in the Democratic party? Do you really want a 72 year old geezer with a terrible Iraqi policy who is likely to keel over in his first term leaving his rightwingnut vice president in charge to appoint Supreme court justices and maybe start a few more illegal wars while setting back women's and gay rights issues decades and lining the pocketbooks of the very rich while the middle class becomes poorer and the environment continues to be ruined .? If so just keep it up and you may just get your wish.

[strandinthewind]

What is the point of continuing to fan the flames of divisiveness in the Democratic party? Do you really want a 72 year old geezer with a terrible Iraqi policy who is likely to keel over in his first term leaving his rightwingnut vice president in charge to appoint Supreme court justices and maybe start a few more illegal wars while setting back women's and gay rights issues decades and lining the pocketbooks of the very rich while the middle class becomes poorer and the environment continues to be ruined .? If so just keep it up and you may just get your wish.

1. Please cite which law made the war, presumably the Iraqi war, illegal. Last I checked, Congress gave W the legal authority to go to war, which is the crux of why you hate Hillary :wavey:

2. Racism is racism and appeasing that by ignoring it all for the lesser of two evils is rather distasteful.

If Hillary had won the nomination, could you have voted for her even though she voted to give W the authority to go to war in Iraq, which you equate as voting to go to war unconditionally in Iraq and which is why you stated you loathe her?

[BombaySapphire3]

Please show me where I said that I "hate" Hillary in fact if you scroll back a few pages I say that I don't hate the Clintons.I am not ignoring racism but given our nation's sordid history it is doubtful we will really be able to move past it in our lifetimes sad to say.Please see Dennis Kucinich's articles of impeachment if you want to read about the illegal activities and outright lies that went into duping people into going along with the Iraqi war.I can't say 100% if I would vote for Hillary but when ruminating over what I wrote in the posting just before this I probably would have and like I supplied the stats for earlier significantly more of her supporters would vote for McCain than Obama's would have if she were the nominee and that I would never do.

[strandinthewind]

. . . Please see Dennis Kucinich's articles of impeachment if you want to read about the illegal activities and outright lies that went into duping people into going along with the Iraqi war.

I have read them and there is nothing illegal in them that I saw. That is why I said please cite the law that W broke. I mean you asserted the war was "illegal" :shrug: Was it immoral, unjust, ill advised, poorly executed, or some other non legal term - I think it was. But, I find no support for it being "illegal." I mean even Obama said that he thought he had been wrong about the war in Iraq when he saw the statute of SH toppled. Sadly. W and co. botched those dreams.

I can't say 100% if I would vote for Hillary but when ruminating over what I wrote in the posting just before this I probably would have and like I supplied the stats for earlier significantly more of her supporters would vote for McCain than Obama's would have if she were the nominee and that I would never do.

The only reason I asked that is because you seem not to want to hear anything bad about Obama or his campaign because you think it will get McCain elected, which you said would leave:

his rightwingnut vice president in charge to appoint Supreme court justices and maybe start a few more illegal wars while setting back women's and gay rights issues decades and lining the pocketbooks of the very rich while the middle class becomes poorer and the environment continues to be ruined

I am at a loss to see why you would not choose Hillary over that scenario. I get that you may question (is that a better term? ) her for her vote to give W the authority to go to war in Iraq. But, clearly she is, despite her faults and that, in your opinion, glaring fault, not in any way supportive of the McCain scenario you cited. Moreover, you fault her supporters for questioning whether they would vote for Obama when you clearly felt the same way about HC at one time :shrug:

As for those stats, I think they are outdated. I think now that the dust has settled, lost Hillary supports will either not vote or will vote for Obama, the latter scenario being the vast majority IMO. I support this by noting Hillary is campaigning for Obama and those 18,000,000 or so people will be swayed by that. Is there a more recent poll conducted in, say, the last two weeks?

[DavidMn]

Anybody catch the piece on CNN last night about how Michelle Obama is going to undertake a makeover of sorts in that there are now apparently going to be some personal image consultants added to the campaign.

[strandinthewind]

^^^^

I can assure you both campaigns as well as the losers in the primaries all had image consultants.

As for Michelle Obama, IMO she can be a huge asset for him as she is well spoken (even with the foolish "proud" comment that was taken out of context) and pretty. Moreover, the press seems to love her already as they have labeled her the new Jackie O. I think by comparison, Cindy McCain comes off as a snobby white rich lady. I think that is somewhat unfair for Cindy McCain. However, she seemingly has little interest in dispelling that image projection.

[estranged4life]

the less and less Chance I will vote for the Gasoline Oil Party this coming November...That is of course if the world doesnt explode by then, :laugh:

Brian "F**k the G.O.P. and their Gasoline Oil Party ideologies...Vote for Shatner/Satan in 2008" j.

[BombaySapphire3]

I have read them and there is nothing illegal in them that I saw. That is why I said please cite the law that W broke. I mean you asserted the war was "illegal" :shrug: Was it immoral, unjust, ill advised, poorly executed, or some other non legal term - I think it was. But, I find no support for it being "illegal." I mean even Obama said that he thought he had been wrong about the war in Iraq when he saw the statute of SH toppled. Sadly. W and co. botched those dreams.


The only reason I asked that is because you seem not to want to hear anything bad about Obama or his campaign because you think it will get McCain elected, which you said would leave:



I am at a loss to see why you would not choose Hillary over that scenario. I get that you may question (is that a better term? ) her for her vote to give W the authority to go to war in Iraq. But, clearly she is, despite her faults and that, in your opinion, glaring fault, not in any way supportive of the McCain scenario you cited. Moreover, you fault her supporters for questioning whether they would vote for Obama when you clearly felt the same way about HC at one time :shrug:

As for those stats, I think they are outdated. I think now that the dust has settled, lost Hillary supports will either not vote or will vote for Obama, the latter scenario being the vast majority IMO. I support this by noting Hillary is campaigning for Obama and those 18,000,000 or so people will be swayed by that. Is there a more recent poll conducted in, say, the last two weeks?

Ok I'm not gonna argue the law with a lawyer that is a losing proposition :laugh:It does seem to me that if you add up all the misdeeds of Bush ,Cheney et. al. that they should not only be impeached but tried in The Hague..IMO they are guilty of war crimes even if legally they did nothing wrong.And yes now given the scenario I imagine if McCain were elected I believe I would vote for Hillary if she were the nomineee and I will enthusiastically vote the ticket if she somehow ends up the V.P.The main problem I had with Hillary supporters is not them refusing to vote for Obama but voting for McCain instead.I repeat a very Medean choice.Just today it was reported that Obama has pulled ahead of McCain in the all important states of Ohio.Florida and Pennsylvania so alot the Hillary people must be starting to move his way .

[strandinthewind]

Believe me, there is nothing I would like better than to see W and Co. go to jail for the fraud they perpetrated on the American people. I just do not see any legal ground for it, much less a back bone in Congress to investigate it properly. So, I am biding my time for the last eight or so months of W's awful Presidency. And, I truly hope Obama wins for the reasons you stated.

The legal problems are, as I stated, the UN unamimously voted for years (mostly during Clinton's watch and at Clinton's beckoning) that SH had the WMD based mostly on the same evidence W used to go to war. Then, the UN agreed to give SH one last chance or face military consequences (I forget the exact wording) -- Then, Congress gave W the authority to go to war. I think W misued that authority, but it seemingly cannot be proven or Congress is unwilling to prove it. I think the R's are unwilling to prove it because they whole heartedly supported W. I think the D's are unwilling to prove it because to do so negates their own actions both during the Clinton administration (when they were the ones doing the killing in Iraq) and in mostly supporting W. So, I think it will never happen. Maybe one day someone will spill the beans.

My word, we are agreeing :eek:

CUMBYA . . . CUMBYA :angel:

[David]

Believe me, there is nothing I would like better than to see W and Co. go to jail for the fraud they perpetrated on the American people. Have you decided whether or not to work on Egmont yet?

[strandinthewind]

Have you decided whether or not to work on Egmont yet?

Yes, I plan to. I may be around a piano this weekend (a restore Steinway B from the 30's) -- if so, I will tinker at it.

[ajmccarrell]

Am I the only Republican Mac fan? LOL! I cannot even consider voting for Obama because of all of the gaffes he makes, though most of the mainstream media does not cover them, since they are fawning over the guy.

Example 1: "I want to raise capital gains taxes." When we are teetering on the edge of full-blown recession, doing this would push us into a depression! I cannot fathom the ignorance behind this statement.

Example 2: "We cannot drill our way out of this." I guess the first thing Obama would repeal would be supply and demand, or do the last several thousand years of economic theory cease simply because Obama would be president? Since we'd be paying $20.00 per gallon if he is elected, so I guess maybe we should be developing cars that run on hope! He also states that drilling won't take effect on prices for five years, however R & D on other fuels have gone much faster? We've been developing alternatives for years with nearly no progress. Why doesn't the five year deadline apply to that?! This is SOOO shortsighted it is utterly unbelievable.

Example 3: "I work across the isle". He has NO record of doing so and is consistently the most liberal member of the senate on what little he has done. The only three guys who have actually worked across the isle to accomplish ANYTHING in the last 10 years are McCain, Kennedy and Lieberman. I don't buy it!

Example 4: "My faith is close to my heart" In his book "The Audacity of Hope", he actually admits he joined his church to make his political career easier so that he could get a base to be a community organizer. He portrays himself as agnostic through the rest of the book.

Example 5: "Don't be fooled by middle classness, stay poor". This one speaks for itself.

Example 6: "I've been to 57 states". REAAAALLY???? This guy wants to be president but doesn't know how many states we have. If Bush had made this comment, we'd never hear the end of it. But I guess he wasn't full of "Hope & Change".

Example 7: "Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle" Illinois is right on the border of Kentucky?! Arkansas is not.

Example 8: "The perpetrators of the 93 attack were brought to justice and incapacitated." REALLY??!!!?! Perhaps he missed the four other terror attacks by this same group on American targets since that one. This one is truly stunning~!

Example 9: "Here’s something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I’m not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I don’t know exactly what’s going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said that, I promise you I’ll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport.” I assume on that ride, a staffer reminded him that he’s voted on at least one defense authorization bill that addressed the “costs, schedules, and technical issues” dealing with the nation’s most contaminated nuclear waste site.

Example 10: And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn’t “pose a serious threat to us”–cluelessly arguing that “tiny countries” with small defense budgets can’t do us harm– and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.” Uhh Staggering stupidity!

Example 11: He wants to socialize healthcare but has no real way to pay for it. Think of it this way, one half of our federal budget is devoted to social security, which is about 16% of our population. Our social security obligation is crushing us and we won't have it when we retire. He wants to cover 100% of our population! Think of what that would really mean? Do we really want health care by the people who brought us Iraq, Walter Reed, employment security, Social Security, our national debt, and the endless stream of governmental greatest hits?

Even considering the guy is impossible.

[strandinthewind]

. . . Example 1: "I want to raise capital gains taxes." When we are teetering on the edge of full-blown recession, doing this would push us into a depression! I cannot fathom the ignorance behind this statement . . . .

Actually, a raise in the capital gains tax would not significantly affect the vast majority of the consumer spending power in the US, which is what will help the economy. But, it is rhetoric because acoording to most, not that much tax rev. would be raised. Moreover, the R's borrowing to pay for a war we did not have to fight and a war the R's told us Iraqi oil would pay for, is the reason we are in this mess. Why should we trust them again?

The point to me is moot as I am for the Fair Tax.

Example 2: "We cannot drill our way out of this." I guess the first thing Obama would repeal would be supply and demand, or do the last several thousand years of economic theory cease simply because Obama would be president? Since we'd be paying $20.00 per gallon if he is elected, so I guess maybe we should be developing cars that run on hope! He also states that drilling won't take effect on prices for five years, however R & D on other fuels have gone much faster? We've been developing alternatives for years with nearly no progress. Why doesn't the five year deadline apply to that?! This is SOOO shortsighted it is utterly unbelievable . . . .

Actually, we could drain all of the expected oil in Alaska and it would be like pissing on an inferno. There simply is a comparatively negligible amount of oil in terms of US comsumption, assuuming the extracted oil stays here and is not sold to a higher bidder ten or so years from now -- this is a huge assumption.

Estimates of oil reserves in ANWR --

In May of 2008 the Energy Information Administration (under the current Bush Admin. mind you) released the following report:

"The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and natural gas development is projected to increase domestic crude oil production starting in 2018. In the mean ANWR oil resource case, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR reaches 780,000 barrels per day in 2027 and then declines to 710,000 barrels per day in 2030. In the low and high ANWR oil resource cases, additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR peaks in 2028 at 510,000 and 1.45 million barrels per day, respectively. Between 2018 and 2030, cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels, respectively."

This means that if drilling in the ANWR was to start in 2008 that the first barrel of oil would arrive in 2018 and that the oil arriving has a 50 percent chance of being 2.6 billion barrels. The United States currently uses 8 billion barrels per year.

The report also states:

"Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case."

For the average case, drilling in ANWR would reduce crude oil by 75 cents, out of a current $130, in 2025. This amounts to about a 0.5% change. The total production from ANWAR would be, in 2024, approximately 1% of the United States needs.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/index.html?featureclicked=2&

But, I am all for it because I say the sooner we drain all the oil, the sooner we start being forced to develop things like wind and solar power - necessity is the mother of invention :shrug:

As for developing alternatives -- I suggest the oil companies stifle any true research. I mean they have billions a year in rev. as incentive. I think it is interesting that there are countries that have no dependence on oil. Yet, the USA cannot seem to get there :rolleyes:

Example 3: "I work across the isle". He has NO record of doing so and is consistently the most liberal member of the senate on what little he has done. The only three guys who have actually worked across the isle to accomplish ANYTHING in the last 10 years are McCain, Kennedy and Lieberman. I don't buy it!

Well, on social issues, why work with the R's. They have tried to put gay people (and straight people for that matter) in jail for having unmarital sex and even married people in jail for things like sodomy (which includes fellatio :rolleyes: ) -- see Bowers v. Hardwick (though the Georgia law upheld in Bowers forbade oral sex and anal sex whether engaged in by people of the same sex or different sexes, the actual arrest was for homosexual fellatio)

They want to put Christianity as the official religion of the US and the devil cares about the ungrateful non Christians who happen to live in Christian America. I will never understand why it is not enough to worship at the church of your choice. Why does the govt. have to sponsor your choice as if only the govt. can somehow validate your religion. I mean even Christ said give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's :shrug:

They want to tax the middle and lower classes to the point of starvation, while the millionaire saves another $50,000 in tax. I get the govt. waste argument, but how is that fair or, for that matter, Christ like?

Example 8: "The perpetrators of the 93 attack were brought to justice and incapacitated." REALLY??!!!?! Perhaps he missed the four other terror attacks by this same group on American targets since that one. This one is truly stunning~!

You are incorrect. The actual people who did it were caught and prosecuted. You are correct in that not al of Al Q (a relatively new organization then) were not put in jail. But, unless they had an active roll in the actual bombing, US law prohibits them from being guilty by association.

Example 10: And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn’t “pose a serious threat to us”–cluelessly arguing that “tiny countries” with small defense budgets can’t do us harm– and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.” Uhh Staggering stupidity!

You are incorrect again. You take his words out of context. He clearly was saying that Iran was a comparatively smaller threat than Russia in the 80's and Reagan talked to Russia and brought about peace, etc. Here is the speech http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew5qP2oPdtQ

. . . Do we really want health care by the people who brought us Iraq, Walter Reed, employment security, Social Security, our national debt, and the endless stream of governmental greatest hits?

Well, the R's are responsible for all of that. Remember, although the economy was in comparatively slight trouble when W took office, W's insane borrowing and spending erased the trillions in surplus and plunged us trillions in bebt. So, why should we vote them back in for eight more years of that? And, McCain is not that different than W on this point and he mostly supported W's insane borrow and spend, which is FAR worse than the illusory tax and spend the D's get accused of.

Seriously, I know Obama is no joy ride, but I suggest eight more years of R rule will ruin us more than we are ruined now -- and, all in the name of their fabrication of Jesus.

[BombaySapphire3]

After that last posting double kumbya strandie!:xoxo:

[estranged4life]

all in the name of their fabrication of Jesus.

Why does the following song lyric from an SYL song seem appropiate when Jesus is mentioned with those in the GOP (Gas Oil Party):

"Give us a reason for coming of war
Fighting for Jesus through prices of oil
See how your demons are forming a wall
Burning and beating and raping them all"

[vermicious knid]

Am I the only Republican Mac fan?

I have been wondering how many of the people who said they would vote for McCain are Republicans, and how many are disenchanted Democrats.

Consider me disenchanted. I live in reliably Republican Texas, so my vote has never made a difference. A vote for a Democratic president here is a symbolic "I like you" vote. And since Obama blowing his nose has never sent me into waves of ecstasy, I won't give him that vote.

[ajmccarrell]

Actually I am for the fair tax as well, however, capital gains taxes DO affect consumer spending as capital gains are what attracts investors to invest in companies and employ people. Because interest rates are too low, the only incentive any investors have to invest in the US at all would be capital gains. Thus raising the tax on this, without simultaneously raising interest rates will plunge us into a depression.

As far as oil goes, ANWR would only be the tip of the iceberg. We would have to drill pretty much everywhere, which I am all for. It would put people to work and lower gas prices.


Sorry, but you can't blame the Republicans for blue laws exclusively. Can you even name a Republican that wants to imprison anyone for their sexual practices? I sure can't. Besides, most of these laws were passed long before either party became what it is today. This is a ridiculous argument. No one has EVER proposed making Christianity the state religion. This is an outright lie!

Most Republicans are for the fair tax, which doesn't tax the lower or middle class at all. You are lying again here.

US Law does prohibit guilt by association, which is why we've been trying so damn hard to keep Guantanamo open. So, your point only proves my point that it keeps us all safer to not give terrorists constitutional protections.

The insane borrowing, which I agree is insane, happened long before W ever took office. He just simply didn't help. The borrowing started under Hamilton, so you can hardly blame Bush for our national debt when it has been accumulating for 200 years. You must be one of those dems who believes Bush is responsible for slavery too. He should have stopped borrowing, cut spending and paid our debt down. Also, you have confused the national debt with the deficit in your statement. They are NOT the same thing.

The only guy who has promised to cut spending is McCain. Obama plans on spending more than Bush ever dreamed of.

[strandinthewind]

. . . Actually I am for the fair tax as well, however, capital gains taxes DO affect consumer spending as capital gains are what attracts investors to invest in companies and employ people. Because interest rates are too low, the only incentive any investors have to invest in the US at all would be capital gains. Thus raising the tax on this, without simultaneously raising interest rates will plunge us into a depression.

The amount he wants to raise capital gains tax is relatively negligible. Moreover, the masses spending money is the main factor that drives earnings. If you take away spending power from 3/4 of the people, companies cannot work. I agree that capital gains has an effect, but we are not talking about capital for start ups here. We are talking about gain in the stock market, which has little to do with raising capital for a new plant, etc. It is income for the speculator for the most part. Note - I am all for speculation. However, if I had several million dollars already and I saved $50,000 in cap gains taxes, I likely would not put that $50,000 back into the actual economy in the same way as the mil worker who paid $100 less in taxes would.

Note - I do not think he should raise the capital gains tax. If we have to have an income tax, I think the Bush tax cuts were fairly well thought out, even if I would have not given the rich ($500,000 + a year) so much in them. The Bush tax cuts provided a jump start for the economy. However, W's crazy spending (with McCain's blessing) quickly extinguished any flame by those cuts.

As far as oil goes, ANWR would only be the tip of the iceberg. We would have to drill pretty much everywhere, which I am all for. It would put people to work and lower gas prices.

True, it would put people to work, which is a good thing. However, the price of gas will not be affected until ten years from now and it assumes too many variables, like the cost of exploration and drilling will remain stagnant, the expected oil is actually there, and the cost in oil to get the oil will not drive up the price even more. So, the argument is not really that accurate. Again, I am all for drilling and extracting al of the oil from the earth right now because I think that is the only way to stop polluting the earth in the long run. Sad, but very true IMO.

Also, I have seen no reports that the US in total has any relatively significant deposits of oil. Yes, she has some, but, I think the aggregate is less than 5% untapped. That is really nothing on a global scale.

Sorry, but you can't blame the Republicans for blue laws exclusively. Can you even name a Republican that wants to imprison anyone for their sexual practices? I sure can't. Besides, most of these laws were passed long before either party became what it is today. This is a ridiculous argument. No one has EVER proposed making Christianity the state religion. This is an outright lie!

1. I never blamed the R's on Blue Laws or their inception. The Southern D's (arguably now the cornerstone of the R party) had a heavy hand in those laws.

2. Currently, you are very misinformed here. First, the case of Bowers v. Hardwick. Please read it. In that case, which was in the 80's, the Republican state and Federal governments argued that the prosecution of two men for engaging in consenual fellatio was a valid state interest that the government should not prevent. The governments also argued that the Georgia law's prohibition of consenual extra marital sex and or ANY (marital or otherwise) consenual sodomy (which the statute described as fellatio as well as anal sex) should not be over ruled. In other words, people should be put in jail for having consenual sexual acts. Fast forward to 2003, when the Bush Administration and the Texas government (both R's) argued vehemently that the state of Texas has the right to prosecute and put in jail gay people for having consenual sex. I am pretty sure no D regime has argued at all much less so vehemently for putting people (gay and straight) in jail for consenual sex.

As for Christianity being the official religion, you are incorrect there as well. Let's start with the Pledge of Allegiance. Bellamy's original 1892 Pledge read, "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. America." Inj the 50's and allegedly to stop godless Communism from spreading in the US, which had a God :shrug: -- the Knight of Columbus began a huge campaign to get "under God" put into the POA. The KC felt the pledge was incomplete without any reference to a deity.

This is just one example. Another is the far right and the R's in the Fed. and State govt.'s wanting to put the Ten Commandments in the court houses and referring to it as "the law." Another example is the prayer breakfasts that the Bush Administration has made common in the Federal Govt workplace. While they are not mandatory, not to go based on your religion will exclude you from an important venue where work is discussed. Then, gay marriage. Why does any religion's view of homosexuality come into the govt.'s def. of marriage. Even if youy believe that gay marriage is a hidious thing, that is not the point. The point is that the govt.'s are giving financial and other benefits to one group of people and excluding another based solely on religion -- can you think of a compelling reasons to shun gay marriage other than religion :shrug:

All of that is the far right, the R's, and the crazy Christians wanting to put Christianity as the lead religion of the US. Have they said it outright. No, they have not. But their actions shriek it.

Most Republicans are for the fair tax, which doesn't tax the lower or middle class at all. You are lying again here.

Um, please show me where I said who other than myself was for the Fair Tax :shrug:

US Law does prohibit guilt by association, which is why we've been trying so damn hard to keep Guantanamo open. So, your point only proves my point that it keeps us all safer to not give terrorists constitutional protections.

Good - white people bombed Oklahoma City and were responsible for many other terrorist acts in the Clinton and other Administrations. Are you white? If so, please report to Gitmo. Simialrly, all Arabs are not terrorists. Moreover, all Arabs are not in Al-Q. Finally, if the govt. can prove by the rule of law or on the field of combat that someone is a terrorist, I am all for locking them away, etc. But, the US cannot just lock people up and keep them there forever. Hitler did that.

Also, just how exactly do you know who is in Gitmo and what the acts that put them there were? I admit that I think the majority of the people there deserve to be locked up because they were in Al-Q. But, to suggest that locking them away forever without any supervision suggests ignorance of the Geneva Convention, US Law, and just about every other law of every other civilized nation. Maybe you just believe in W and that he would not lie to you. If that is the case, this argument we are having needs to go no further because you cannot see facts, which are all that interest me.

The insane borrowing, which I agree is insane, happened long before W ever took office. He just simply didn't help. The borrowing started under Hamilton, so you can hardly blame Bush for our national debt when it has been accumulating for 200 years. You must be one of those dems who believes Bush is responsible for slavery too. He should have stopped borrowing, cut spending and paid our debt down. Also, you have confused the national debt with the deficit in your statement. They are NOT the same thing.

Yes, the US had borrowed for a long time. However, when W took office we had a surplus -- now we have deficit :shrug: W also said he would cut spending, blah blah balh - He never did, and he never did in any significant manner even before 9/11. So, to think McCain, who supported W and argued for W all the way down the line, will be any better is not really a logical conclusion.

The only guy who has promised to cut spending is McCain. Obama plans on spending more than Bush ever dreamed of.

Well, McCain certainly voted for W's spending. Also -- please provide exact figures of how much more than W and McCain Obama means to spend. I suggest you can't.

You might do better to investigate a little before posting. Certainly you don't have to. But, it would make you and your arguments appear more intelligent :shrug:

[Steviefan49]

I have been wondering how many of the people who said they would vote for McCain are Republicans, and how many are disenchanted Democrats.

Consider me disenchanted. I live in reliably Republican Texas, so my vote has never made a difference. A vote for a Democratic president here is a symbolic "I like you" vote. And since Obama blowing his nose has never sent me into waves of ecstasy, I won't give him that vote.

Thank you sweetie, on all counts! Being that I am your neighbor, (LOL) I can't agree more! That's exactly where I am too! One thing you can count on tho, and that is "if" I do decide to vote, due to my girl not running :distress:- I can assure you I certainly won't be voting for 4 more years of this mess.. I surely don't want Obama either tho... If only our girl could run on a "Independent ticket".. Wouldn't that be nice? LOL:D

[strandinthewind]

Thank you sweetie, on all counts! Being that I am your neighbor, (LOL) I can't agree more! That's exactly where I am too! One thing you can count on tho, and that is "if" I do decide to vote, due to my girl not running :distress:- I can assure you I certainly won't be voting for 4 more years of this mess.. I surely don't want Obama either tho... If only our girl could run on a "Independent ticket".. Wouldn't that be nice? LOL:D

I disagree with not voting for Obama because he is not Hillary. IMO, if you don't want four more years of W, then you must vote for Obama even if you live in a state like Texas that is likely to go R. I think all bets are off on R states this year because Obama's race will play a huge factor. Also, I think winning the popular vote is a good, though relatively meaningless, thing to do. If enough voters decline to vote based on the thought that if their vote counted, they would bite the bullet and vote for Obama, don't vote, it could enhance the R's chances. So, I accept that Hillary was defeated and that Obama will be the nominee. So, for me, the most important thing is to prevent McCain, even though I must swallow my pride to do so.

[Steviefan49]

I disagree with not voting for Obama because he is not Hillary. IMO, if you don't want four more years of W, then you must vote for Obama even if you live in a state like Texas that is likely to go R. I think all bets are off on R states this year because Obama's race will play a huge factor. Also, I think winning the popular vote is a good, though relatively meaningless, thing to do. If enough voters decline to vote based on the thought that if their vote counted, they would bite the bullet and vote for Obama, don't vote, it could enhance the R's chances. So, I accept that Hillary was defeated and that Obama will be the nominee. So, for me, the most important thing is to prevent McCain, even though I must swallow my pride to do so.

Yeah.. you are right there.. I just can't seem to stomach him, and all the lies.. LOL.. I certainly can't handle another 4 years of this mess for sure! So, I think we are caught between a rock and a hard spot, but it's definitely time to change the channel - as far as the R's go for sure! LOL :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

^^^

And, for the record, I was not wild about Hillary. I just thought she was better than Obama. I did, however, vote for Obama in Georgia because I knew it would not matter as Obama was destined to take Georgia in the primary as I think he is in the general election.

[Steviefan49]

^^^

And, for the record, I was not wild about Hillary. I just thought she was better than Obama. I did, however, vote for Obama in Georgia because I knew it would not matter as Obama was destined to take Georgia in the primary as I think he is in the general election.

Really? I SOOO thought she would have definitely been better by a "landslide" then Obama too.. ! But the party is what I'm after to win for sure! :p

[vermicious knid]

Here is an interesting fact. There have not been three two-term presidents in a row since the early 1800's! Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe are the only example of such a thing happening. If the next president gets re-elected, this occurance will repeat itself for the first time in more than 200 years.

[strandinthewind]

^^^

Interesting tidbit!

ALso -- for the R supporters -- Good Thing we have a Pres. we can believe in much less believe at all.

BTW -- if it can be proven, the Scooter Libby incident most certainly is an impeachable offense.

Finally, I think it is sad that the WH and its real press sec. (Fox News) are once again villifying the messenger insteadof the message. How many more is it going to take?
________________________________________________

McClellan: Bush must blame himself for mistrust

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
44 minutes ago



If the nation doesn't trust the Bush White House, it's the president's and Dick Cheney's own fault, Bush's former spokesman told Congress Friday.

From life-and-death matters on down — the rationale for war, the leaking of classified information, Cheney's accidental shooting of a friend — the government's top two leaders undermined their credibility by "packaging" their version of the truth, former press secretary Scott McClellan said.

He described the loss of trust as self-inflicted, telling the House Judiciary Committee that Bush and his administration failed to open up about White House mistakes.

The focus of the panel's hearing was the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, and McClellan said that was a good example of the administration damaging itself by backtracking on a pledge be upfront.

"This White House promised or assured the American people that at some point when this was behind us they would talk publicly about it. And they have refused to," McClellan said. "And that's why I think more than any other reason we are here today and the suspicion still remains."

The White House dismissed Friday's hearing as unenlightening and McClellan, the president's former top spokesman, as uninformed. Republicans on the committee accused him of writing about sensitive matters to make money, a reference to his recent book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception."

"I think Scott has probably told everyone everything he doesn't know, so I don't know if anyone should expect him to say anything new today," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto.

Fratto, who is Bush's deputy press secretary, came to the White House after McClellan left, apparently in good standing, in April 2006.

McClellan, considered an ultimate Bush loyalist until the book came out, worked for Bush when the future president was Texas governor, jumped to his presidential campaign and then followed him to Washington when he won.

On Friday, McClellan returned repeatedly to his theme that Bush, Cheney and others in the administration had done great damage to themselves — and by extension to aides like McClellan — by being less than truthful on a range of official matters.

"This is a very secretive White House," McClellan said. "There's some things that they would prefer not to be talked about."

McClellan took aim at Bush's personal honesty when discussing the president's handling of allegations that he had long ago used cocaine.

In the book, McClellan recounts hearing Bush on the telephone telling a supporter that "I honestly don't remember whether I tried it or not."

McClellan called that kind of response to sensitive questions by Bush and other politicians "essentially evasion" that for Bush later "transferred over to other issues" of policy.

"It tells something about his character," he maintained.

Committee Republicans said McClellan was the one with the credibility problem.

"Some would say that you included that sensational information about the alleged drug use and his denial not to promote bipartisanship and civility but rather to promote book sales," said Rep. Ric Keller, R-Fla.

McClellan made clear in the book and in person that he felt especially burned by the Plame matter.

He said that former White House chief of staff Andy Card told him that the president and vice president wanted him to publicly say that Cheney's top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was not involved in the leak.

"I was reluctant to do it," McClellan said Friday. "I got on the phone with Scooter Libby and asked him point-blank, 'Were you involved in this in any way?' And he assured me in unequivocal terms that he was not."

In fact, both Libby and former presidential adviser Karl Rove had discussed Plame's identity with reporters.

State Department official Richard Armitage first revealed Plame's CIA identity to columnist Robert Novak, who used Rove as a confirming source for a 2003 article. Around that time Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson was criticizing Bush's march to war in Iraq.

Plame maintains the White House quietly revealed her position to reporters as retribution for criticism from her husband. McClellan told the panel he agreed.

Libby resigned from office the day he was indicted on charges of covering up the leak. He was later convicted, but last July Bush commuted his 2 1/2-year sentence, sparing him from serving any prison time. "It was special treatment," McClellan said of the commutation.

Rove left the White House last August. He has never been charged in the case.

McClellan told the House panel he doesn't know if a crime was committed and does not believe that Bush knew about or directed the leak. When asked about Cheney, he replied: "I do not know. There's a lot of suspicion there."

Fratto disputed the notion that the Plame issue concluded with Libby's conviction, freeing the White House to talk about it openly. He pointed out that she and Wilson are suing several administration officials.

"The White House has the consistent position that we would refrain from comment while there was ongoing litigation," Fratto said. "Scott must have forgotten the policy he repeatedly stated from the podium."

McClellan cited several other examples, some stemming from the Plame incident, of what he said was a lack of candor pervading the Bush administration.

The White House had said in 2003 and 2004 that anyone who leaked classified information in the case would be dismissed.

By July 2005, Bush qualified his position, saying he would fire anyone for leaking classified information if that person had "committed a crime."

When Cheney accidentally shot a friend during a hunting trip in 2006, McClellan initially quoted the owner of the ranch as saying that the injured man had been at fault for not letting Cheney know he was nearby. Cheney himself later said it was not his friend's fault.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080620/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_probe

[vermicious knid]

Obama wants disappointed Hillary supporters to "get over it" without much effort on his part. That is what he indicated to my representative, Sheila Jackson-Lee, when she urged him to reach out to Clinton's supporters. Lack of time was the reason he cited. Wouldn't you think he would make time to entice the nearly 18 million people who supported Hillary? One of his advisors said the same thing a few weeks back, that they wouldn't be spending much time wooing her people. I guess he still has the same arrogance that led him to say "I am confident that I will get her votes if I'm the nominee. It’s not clear that she would get the votes I got if she were the nominee."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5215668&page=1

[David]

Do you guys think that I would make a good president?

[Steviefan49]

Obama wants disappointed Hillary supporters to "get over it" without much effort on his part. That is what he indicated to my representative, Sheila Jackson-Lee, when she urged him to reach out to Clinton's supporters. Lack of time was the reason he cited. Wouldn't you think he would make time to entice the nearly 18 million people who supported Hillary? One of his advisors said the same thing a few weeks back, that they wouldn't be spending much time wooing her people. I guess he still has the same arrogance that led him to say "I am confident that I will get her votes if I'm the nominee. It’s not clear that she would get the votes I got if she were the nominee."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5215668&page=1

I do have a few "choice" words for him... but can't repeat them here! LMAO :p

[Steviefan49]

Do you guys think that I would make a good president?

Absolutely David!!!! You got my vote ! You running on the "Independant" ticket??:laugh::wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Pandering and obviously trying to correct the Wright situation. I wonder what the left will have to say about their golden calf now.

Personally, whatever initial reservations I had about it, I think in effect, it has not been a bad thing. And, I do think the chruches (all denominations and faiths) do a much better job than the govt. in administering to the poor. Sadly, the far right can use that charity in a non-charitable way.

Who know though - maybe Obama can be the one to unite the country from a secular and religious angle. He certainly has astounded before :shrug:

Bombay - does this make you like Obama less?
_______________________________________________

Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer

Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and — in a move sure to cause controversy — support some ability to hire and fire based on faith.

Obama was unveiling his approach to getting religious charities more involved in government anti-poverty programs during a tour and remarks Tuesday in Zanesville, Ohio, at Eastside Community Ministry, which provides food, clothes, youth ministry and other services.

"The challenges we face today ... are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama was to say, according to a prepared text of his remarks obtained by The Associated Press. "We need all hands on deck."

Obama's announcement is part of a series of events leading up to Friday's Fourth of July holiday that are focused on American values.

The Democratic presidential candidate spent Monday talking about his vision of patriotism in the battleground state of Missouri. By twinning that with Tuesday's talk about faith in another battleground state, he was attempting to settle debate in two key areas where his beliefs have come under question while also trying to make inroads with constituencies traditionally loyal to Republicans.

But Obama's support for letting religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decisions could invite a storm of protest from those who view such faith requirements as discrimination.

Obama does not support requiring religious tests for recipients of aid nor using federal money to proselytize, according to a campaign fact sheet. He also only supports letting religious institutions hire and fire based on faith in the non-taxypayer funded portions of their activities, said a senior adviser to the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the new policy.

Bush supports broader freedoms for taxpayer-funded religious charities. But he never got Congress to go along so he has conducted the program through administrative actions and executive orders.

David Kuo, a conservative Christian who was deputy director of Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives until 2003 and later became a critic of Bush's commitment to the cause, said Obama's position on hiring has the potential to be a major "Sister Souljah moment" for his campaign.

This is a reference to Bill Clinton's accusation in his 1992 presidential campaign that the hip hop artist incited violence against whites. Because Clinton said this before a black audience, it fed into an image of him as a bold politician who was willing to take risks and refused to pander.

"This is a massive deal," said Kuo, who is not an Obama adviser or supporter but was contacted by the campaign to review the new plan.

Kuo called Obama's approach smart, impressive and well thought-out but took a wait-and-see attitude about whether it would deliver.

"When it comes to promises to help the poor, promises are easy," said Kuo, who wrote a 2006 book describing his frustration at what he called Bush's lackluster enthusiasm for the program. "The question is commitment."

Obama proposes to elevate the program to a "moral center" of his administration, by renaming it the Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and changing training from occasional huge conferences to empowering larger religious charities to mentor smaller ones in their communities.

Saying social service spending has been shortchanged under Bush, he also proposes a $500 million per year program to provide summer learning for 1 million poor children to help close achievement gaps with white and wealthier students. A campaign fact sheet said he would pay for it by better managing surplus federal properties, reducing growth in the federal travel budget and streamlining the federal procurement process.

Like Bush, Obama was arguing that religious organizations can and should play a bigger role in serving the poor and meeting other social needs. But while Bush argued that the strength of religious charities lies primarily in shared religious identity between workers and recipients, Obama was to tout the benefits of their "bottom-up" approach.

"Because they're so close to the people, they're well-placed to offer help," he was to say.

He also planned to talk bluntly about the genesis of his Christian faith in his work as a community organizer in Chicago, and its importance to him now.

"In time, I came to see faith as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community; that while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work," he was to say.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_on_el_pr/obama_faith

[vermicious knid]

This video is especially appropriate for a Fleetwood Mac forum.

<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DYrUkvAcoss&border=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DYrUkvAcoss&border=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

[BombaySapphire3]

[QUOTE=strandinthewind;761550]

Bombay - does this make you like Obama less?
______________________________

I am not overly thrilled with any of his religious ties or notions being a huge proponent of the seperation of church and state .A seperation I know you believe doesn't exist.He is doing what politicians do in an election year to win .Will it deter me from voting for him or supporting him ? Certainly not.The day a flat out atheist can win the Presidency in this country will be a fine one indeed.

[TrueFaith77]

Where's the Nader option?

[Richard B]

Where's the Nader option?

On the Presidential Ballot, just fill in the blank. I think he is running as an Independent.


Funny, how people are still battling between Republican and Democrat. Frankly, there will be other choices on the ballot besides the 2 major screwballs from the 2 main parties.

I generally vote Democratic, but I dislike Obama greatly. I was hoping Hillary would have taken the spot, and I am not a big fan of her either, but I had to pick the best of the worst.

So is it the Freedom Party candidate? The Green Party candidate? An independent?
I'll probably just fill in the blank with John Edwards or Snoopy.

[strandinthewind]

[QUOTE=strandinthewind;761550]

Bombay - does this make you like Obama less?
______________________________

I am not overly thrilled with any of his religious ties or notions being a huge proponent of the seperation of church and state .A seperation I know you believe doesn't exist.He is doing what politicians do in an election year to win .Will it deter me from voting for him or supporting him ? Certainly not.The day a flat out atheist can win the Presidency in this country will be a fine one indeed.

That interesting. So, you not only are for the separation of Church and State, but you are against people having faith at all? The reason I say this I think it is possible for a person of any faith to do their job despite their faith, so to speak. I sense you do not think that is possible?

[BombaySapphire3]

[QUOTE=BombaySapphire3;761802]

That interesting. So, you not only are for the separation of Church and State, but you are against people having faith at all? The reason I say this I think it is possible for a person of any faith to do their job despite their faith, so to speak. I sense you do not think that is possible?

If I believed that would I be supporting Obama at all?The thing that irks me is that an individual's faith has become such a litmus test for whether they are qualified to even be President at all and this should not be ..for example if Obama was indeed a Muslim would he now be the nominee ?..I highly doubt it but it would bother me no more than if he is a Christian as long as he kept it out of his politics . To me it is no different than if one would believe in Santa Claus the Easter bunny or the tooth fairy but if they allow those beliefs to influence their policy than that is a problem..Incidentally I must repeat my admiration for McCain for refusing to show up for that preposterous faith and compassion forum the way Hillary and Barack did.I never thought I'd have to see the day when the Republican nominee was more private and reticent about that issue than the Democratic one.

[strandinthewind]

^^^

I see. I was just curious and I misunderstood one of your earlier comments :cool:

And, to me, the thing is religion and organized religions have done so many gr4eat things. The Roman Catholic Church to this day feeds, clothes, and educates the poor in a way no government can compete with. Yet, they committed to this day such autrocities and to this day they still want their religion to be THE religion. Such is the ying and yang I guess.

[strandinthewind]

If they can get past the fact that he is black (which most cannot) -- How can anyone disagree with this op-ed. The sad thing is that people still cling to W and the R party even though they have bankrupted the nation in their foolish and misguided adventures in all of which their cronies made billions at the cost of our brave soldiers lives and the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi's. That they (the supposed Christian right) want four more years of it sickens me. I suppose hating those uppity fags and abortionists is worth the lives of the soldiers.

July 14, 2008.

Op-Ed Contributor

My Plan for Iraq

By BARACK OBAMACHICAGO — The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.

In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.

But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.

In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.

Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.

Barack Obama, a United States senator from Illinois, is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

[strandinthewind]

Yet another reason:

“I think that we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don’t believe in gay adoption."

- Republican presidential hopeful John McCain tells The New York Times

What an idiot. I suppose that is a big FUKC YOU to all the single parents working their a$$'s off out there to make sure their kids have what they need. Moreover and more importantly, what he says has been proven has not -- he is playing on fear and lying - again I am sickened.


To wit:

The American Psychological Association has stated:

"Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, popularity with friends, development of social sex role identity or development of sexual orientation . . . ."

And - they are not the only ones mind you.

I guess McCain knows better than the experts - fukctard :mad:

Again, let's kill more soldiers in Iraq so my friends can make money - and BTW and pay attention here only -- I hate the queers (who are to blame for everything wrong in your life) -- so vote for me.

[strandinthewind]

To be fair - here's some 411 on McCain and the gays:

In an interview published on Sunday in The New York Times, presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain made his feelings clear about gays and lesbians adopting children—he’s totally against it. However, he stated the subject of gay marriage is an issue best left to the states, not the federal government and he won’t attempt to overturn same-sex marriage in California if elected. Once again, McCain’s feelings about equal rights for the LGBT community seem mixed, but are they really?
Arizona Senator John McCain, who portrays himself as a staunch conservative Republican, has never felt shy in sharing his views on LGBT rights issues. Currently McCain is regarded as a strongly anti-gay Republican presidential candidate. Yet, earlier in his career, he seemed almost more of an ally than an enemy to the gay community.

McCain does not support federal legislation to outlaw job discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. He also voted in the Senate against extending the definition of hate crimes to include sexual orientation. On the other hand, McCain signed a statement with 70 other senators in 1994 agreeing not to discriminate against gays and lesbians in hiring practices on Capitol Hill.

McCain is also strongly against gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, calling homosexuals in the armed forces an “intolerable risk” to national security, according to a statement to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN). In the early 90’s, the former senator seemed to have a very different view than he has now, saying that he felt gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve honestly in the military. Now, however, he is totally opposed to overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

In a letter to SLDN, McCain said he now believes “polarization of personnel and breakdown of unite effectiveness is too high a price to pay for well-intentioned but misguided efforts to elevate the interests of a minority of homosexual service members above those of their units.”

Unlike some of his fellow conservative Republicans, McCain has never advocated a federal ban on equal marriage rights for same-sex couples in 2004. In fact, McCain voted in the Senate against a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Yet, McCain states that his opposition to a federal ban has nothing to do with supporting marriage equality for gays and lesbians. Instead, McCain opposes a federal ban because he feels marriage is an issue best left up to the states, not the federal government, calling such a ban “un-Republican.”

Although McCain has opposed a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage twice, he did vote for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage under federal law as a union only between a man and a woman. DOMA also supported the legal right of states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages in other states. He also supported an amendment to the Arizona state constitution banning same-sex marriage and denying government benefits to unmarried couples.

In 1999, McCain said in an interview with Reuters that he would be entirely “comfortable with a homosexual as president of the United States.” But while a gay president apparently isn’t appalling to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, a possibly gay Alabama Attorney General as part of one of his campaign “leadership” teams is apparently a no-no.

This week, in an interview with The New York Times published on Sunday, McCain reaffirmed his belief that the issue of marriage should be left up to the states, a very Republican viewpoint. Regarding the same-sex marriages now taking place legally in California, McCain said he would continue to support the right of the states to regulate their own marriage legislation. “I respect the right of the states to make those decisions,” McCain said.

However, McCain did come out publicly in the interview to say that he believed gay couples should not be allowed to adopt. McCain, who has an adopted daughter with his wife Cindy, told the Times that “I think we’ve proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don’t believe in gay adoption.”

When it comes to receiving the endorsement of some of those gays he does not believe have the right stuff to be parents, however, he is all for it. McCain's campaign has disputed extremely negative ratings he received regarding his stances on gay rights issues from the Human Rights Campaign. His campaign also released a statement saying Senator McCain was “proud to receive an endorsement form the Log Cabin Republicans” during his 2004 re-election campaign to the Senate.

The Log Cabin Republicans, in fact, argue that McCain’s record on LGBT rights is “inclusive and shows positive signs.” When his track record is evaluated, however, it seems the only “positive” views McCain has ever had regarding gay rights is that the states should have the power to discriminate against same-sex marriage without interference from the federal government.

Regardless of any semi-supportive sounding statements toward the gay community McCain may have made in the past, it is clear the presumptive Republican nominee is not at all “mixed” up in his views about the LGBT community’s place in society.

Gays can get married in California, as long as the federal government never has to give them equality under the nation’s highest laws. Gay and lesbian soldiers are perfectly fine in the military just as they are dying in service to our country, but allowing them to be open about their sexual orientation might doom America to disaster of the highest proportions.

And let’s not forget, a homosexual would be just fine running the White House and protecting America’s citizens at large against everything from national disasters to terrorism, according to McCain, but God forbid they should be allowed to raise a child.

© 2008 GayWired.com; All Rights Reserved

[SuzeQuze]

Yet another reason:



What an idiot. I suppose that is a big FUKC YOU to all the single parents working their a$$'s off out there to make sure their kids have what they need. Moreover and more importantly, what he says has been proven has not -- he is playing on fear and lying - again I am sickened.


To wit:

The American Psychological Association has stated:

"Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, popularity with friends, development of social sex role identity or development of sexual orientation . . . ."

And - they are not the only ones mind you.

I guess McCain knows better than the experts - fukctard :mad:

Again, let's kill more soldiers in Iraq so my friends can make money - and BTW and pay attention here only -- I hate the queers (who are to blame for everything wrong in your life) -- so vote for me.

These idealogues somehow ignore science. I don't think they even understand it. :shrug: My dad says there's no common sense anymore in politics. Maybe there never was but lately logic and reason seem to have no place in the R's policies. This is so dangerous as we are seeing now with this endless war and the plunging value of the dollar and our sliding economy. The Rs actually just left the war cost out of the budget. Imagine if you just left some part of your monthly expenses out of your budget? Where is the common sense there? It's so frustrating as a thinking person to witness this bullsh*t.

[ajmccarrell]

These idealogues somehow ignore science. I don't think they even understand it. :shrug: My dad says there's no common sense anymore in politics. Maybe there never was but lately logic and reason seem to have no place in the R's policies. This is so dangerous as we are seeing now with this endless war and the plunging value of the dollar and our sliding economy. The Rs actually just left the war cost out of the budget. Imagine if you just left some part of your monthly expenses out of your budget? Where is the common sense there? It's so frustrating as a thinking person to witness this bullsh*t.

However, Obama is NO alternative.

The basic problem is that Bush has tried to be all things to all people. Most people don't understand enough basic economics to know that there is a tradeoff for everything you do. The dollar has fallen because we have lowered interest rates to help stupid homeowners who got themselves foreclosed on. The REAL republican position would have been to do nothing at all and let the market correct itself and let prices fall so that regular people can afford to buy houses again.

Obama isn't any better as far as economics goes, in fact, he's much worse. He keeps saying we're in a recession, but he also says he wants to raise capital gains taxes. That would destroy what's left of the value of the dollar and drive new businesses overseas. He also says he wants blanket "windfall profits" taxes, but complains about manufacturing going overseas. He says "we can't drill our way out of this mess" as far as oil goes and complains about how long it will take to extract oil out of the ground, but he wants to continue dumping billions of dollars into fuel alternatives that haven't yielded results in the 20 year life of some of these programs. He also said that he wasn't upset by the price of oil, but by how quickly it rose. He offers no real alternatives, other than more of the same throwing money at the problem via government grants. He wants to use wind power, which is notoriously inefficient. He wants to continue using corn ethanol, which it is said would take a field the size of Texas to fuel the US for one month, to replace oil. Not to mention, again Obama is ignoring supply and demand, as using our corn for fuel drives up food prices, as well as crowds out wheat and other substitute crops.
Social Security is bankrupting the country and we will have no social security for my generation at all. YET! Obama wants to implement a national health care system and he is ignorant enough to think that using the funds for the wars would pay for it. If just (very poorly) paying for the elderly is bankrupting the country, do we really think we can realistically pay for every man, woman and child in this country?! He also wants to give "middle class" tax cuts as he spends us further into oblivion.

It appears Obama has never cracked an economics textbook in his life! I have a Master's from a top 30 school on the subject and his basic ignorance of economics, as well as history, is staggering beyond belief. I guess his popularity is a reflection of how poorly educated our own society is anymore. No doubt Obama would suggest nationalizing education to fix it. No wait, that's already been done..... and it is the reason some arrogant and ignorant clown like Obama can become president.

[ajmccarrell]

[QUOTE=BombaySapphire3;761802]

That interesting. So, you not only are for the separation of Church and State, but you are against people having faith at all? The reason I say this I think it is possible for a person of any faith to do their job despite their faith, so to speak. I sense you do not think that is possible?

I have to laugh at the people who don't like government funding of religious programs, because usually they want gay marriage. By definition, government involvment in marriage at all is a violation of separation. We only started having marriage licenses about 150 years ago as a means to raise revenue. In some places, marriage licenses used to expire, so you were automatically divorced unless you paid the renewal fee. Government sanctioned marriage is the ultimate violation of separationg of church and state.

[ajmccarrell]

Pandering and obviously trying to correct the Wright situation. I wonder what the left will have to say about their golden calf now.

Personally, whatever initial reservations I had about it, I think in effect, it has not been a bad thing. And, I do think the chruches (all denominations and faiths) do a much better job than the govt. in administering to the poor. Sadly, the far right can use that charity in a non-charitable way.

Who know though - maybe Obama can be the one to unite the country from a secular and religious angle. He certainly has astounded before :shrug:

Bombay - does this make you like Obama less?
_______________________________________________

Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer

Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and — in a move sure to cause controversy — support some ability to hire and fire based on faith.

Obama was unveiling his approach to getting religious charities more involved in government anti-poverty programs during a tour and remarks Tuesday in Zanesville, Ohio, at Eastside Community Ministry, which provides food, clothes, youth ministry and other services.

"The challenges we face today ... are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama was to say, according to a prepared text of his remarks obtained by The Associated Press. "We need all hands on deck."

Obama's announcement is part of a series of events leading up to Friday's Fourth of July holiday that are focused on American values.

The Democratic presidential candidate spent Monday talking about his vision of patriotism in the battleground state of Missouri. By twinning that with Tuesday's talk about faith in another battleground state, he was attempting to settle debate in two key areas where his beliefs have come under question while also trying to make inroads with constituencies traditionally loyal to Republicans.

But Obama's support for letting religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decisions could invite a storm of protest from those who view such faith requirements as discrimination.

Obama does not support requiring religious tests for recipients of aid nor using federal money to proselytize, according to a campaign fact sheet. He also only supports letting religious institutions hire and fire based on faith in the non-taxypayer funded portions of their activities, said a senior adviser to the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the new policy.

Bush supports broader freedoms for taxpayer-funded religious charities. But he never got Congress to go along so he has conducted the program through administrative actions and executive orders.

David Kuo, a conservative Christian who was deputy director of Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives until 2003 and later became a critic of Bush's commitment to the cause, said Obama's position on hiring has the potential to be a major "Sister Souljah moment" for his campaign.

This is a reference to Bill Clinton's accusation in his 1992 presidential campaign that the hip hop artist incited violence against whites. Because Clinton said this before a black audience, it fed into an image of him as a bold politician who was willing to take risks and refused to pander.

"This is a massive deal," said Kuo, who is not an Obama adviser or supporter but was contacted by the campaign to review the new plan.

Kuo called Obama's approach smart, impressive and well thought-out but took a wait-and-see attitude about whether it would deliver.

"When it comes to promises to help the poor, promises are easy," said Kuo, who wrote a 2006 book describing his frustration at what he called Bush's lackluster enthusiasm for the program. "The question is commitment."

Obama proposes to elevate the program to a "moral center" of his administration, by renaming it the Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and changing training from occasional huge conferences to empowering larger religious charities to mentor smaller ones in their communities.

Saying social service spending has been shortchanged under Bush, he also proposes a $500 million per year program to provide summer learning for 1 million poor children to help close achievement gaps with white and wealthier students. A campaign fact sheet said he would pay for it by better managing surplus federal properties, reducing growth in the federal travel budget and streamlining the federal procurement process.

Like Bush, Obama was arguing that religious organizations can and should play a bigger role in serving the poor and meeting other social needs. But while Bush argued that the strength of religious charities lies primarily in shared religious identity between workers and recipients, Obama was to tout the benefits of their "bottom-up" approach.

"Because they're so close to the people, they're well-placed to offer help," he was to say.

He also planned to talk bluntly about the genesis of his Christian faith in his work as a community organizer in Chicago, and its importance to him now.

"In time, I came to see faith as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community; that while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work," he was to say.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/ap_on_el_pr/obama_faith


Astounded before?! Exactly how? He has a very minute record in the senate at all, because he's been running for president the whole time and has missed so many votes. Uniter? He's NEVER crossed the isle until recently to pander to the center, despite claiming he has always done so. He has a record number of absences from his seat in the state senate for votes. What exactly has this guy done besides read well from a teleprompter, while spewing vacuous phrases such as "hope" and "change" to astound anyone? LOL! I'm not a huge McCain fan, but at least he HAS a record of crossing the isle, even when I think he should have sat down. :laugh: I just don't get this "messiah" complex that people have over Obama. He's a charismatic panderer. :nod: As far as his religion goes, in Dreams of my Father, he outright admits that he hooked up with his church to further his political career. This guy is a huge fake that is attempting to appeal to the people he insulted only a few months ago. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

However, Obama is NO alternative. . . .

On the human and civil rights front, he is a huge alternative :shrug: If not - let's see the evidence supporting McCain. Please start with a non-religious reason why gays cannot get married and/or adopt. I submit there are none.

As for the economics - I think America is rightfully disgusted with the R's economic plan and rightfully so. You raise all these R talking points, but the bottom line is W has spent money like a silly housewife who cannot balance the checkbook and now someone has to pay the bill. Do you really trust the R party to do anything other than what it has done to us, which is screw us, for the last eight years :shrug:

Also, the capital gains argument is a right wing BS talking point and you know it. But, if you really want to argue it accurately, raise the tax on stock market gains and lower or delete it from start up/venture capital gain tax.

[strandinthewind]

[QUOTE=strandinthewind;761823]

I have to laugh at the people who don't like government funding of religious programs, because usually they want gay marriage. By definition, government involvment in marriage at all is a violation of separation. We only started having marriage licenses about 150 years ago as a means to raise revenue. In some places, marriage licenses used to expire, so you were automatically divorced unless you paid the renewal fee. Government sanctioned marriage is the ultimate violation of separationg of church and state.

Believe me, I am for the word marriage being in no law book at all. If you want to get married, get whatever church you belong to to marry you. Then enter into contracts and wills for the disposition of propery. And, if we have the fair tax, that proposition is even more available.

The problem is, the R's do not want sep. of church and state. So, the gays are forced to work within that. It's a vicious cycle. But, your argument is specious because prohibition of types of marriages and benefits given to married people is far older than 150 years :shrug: Also, the R party wants to put gay people in jail for having sex, not to mention unmarried people and, also, married people if they perform fellatio (sodomy) on each other. That is just fukced up :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Astounded before?! Exactly how? He has a very minute record in the senate at all, because he's been running for president the whole time and has missed so many votes. Uniter? He's NEVER crossed the isle until recently to pander to the center, despite claiming he has always done so. He has a record number of absences from his seat in the state senate for votes. What exactly has this guy done besides read well from a teleprompter, while spewing vacuous phrases such as "hope" and "change" to astound anyone? LOL! I'm not a huge McCain fan, but at least he HAS a record of crossing the isle, even when I think he should have sat down. :laugh: I just don't get this "messiah" complex that people have over Obama. He's a charismatic panderer. :nod: As far as his religion goes, in Dreams of my Father, he outright admits that he hooked up with his church to further his political career. This guy is a huge fake that is attempting to appeal to the people he insulted only a few months ago. :shrug:

Blah Blah Blah - please comment on the accuracy of his message. Do you really think we should stay in Iraq forever? Maybe your one of the ones who actually believed W and his cronies when they flat out said Iraq's oil would pay for the war and the recovery. What utter cr*pola.

That you support the R's in any capacity is amazing. I get that Obama is no walk in the park, but can't you see what the R party has done to us and will continue to do to us if McCain is elected. It is sort of like you are Fox News, you acknowledge out of hand that W has done bad things, but you never really address what exactly McCain is going to actually do that is any different. Moreover, even if you can't vote for Obama, why are you going to vote for McCain (assuming you are)?

[strandinthewind]

. . . I have to laugh at the people who don't like government funding of religious programs . . . .

For the record, I am for the churces doing the charity work. I am also for the taxpayers not really paying that much for it. I think the churches should rely on private donations with some sort of large govt. well for, say, buildings etc. I mean all these so called religious people are all for cutting welfare until it comes to paying the Churches to do it. Then, govt. assistance is okay.

[ajmccarrell]

On the human and civil rights front, he is a huge alternative :shrug: If not - let's see the evidence supporting McCain. Please start with a non-religious reason why gays cannot get married and/or adopt. I submit there are none.

As for the economics - I think America is rightfully disgusted with the R's economic plan and rightfully so. You raise all these R talking points, but the bottom line is W has spent money like a silly housewife who cannot balance the checkbook and now someone has to pay the bill. Do you really trust the R party to do anything other than what it has done to us, which is screw us, for the last eight years :shrug:

Also, the capital gains argument is a right wing BS talking point and you know it. But, if you really want to argue it accurately, raise the tax on stock market gains and lower or delete it from start up/venture capital gain tax.

First off, I don't trust the party to curb spending. I do trust McCain to do so, because he has a track record of stopping wasteful spending. It's not an either or question, it's a which is MORE horrible, but both alternatives are horrible.

Also, I DON'T know that the Capital Gains thing is BS. It's true, if you tax investment MORE, people will invest LESS. It is simple logic. I haven't raised ANYONE's talking points. Like I said, I have an advanced business degree and work in business. It's simple logic. I have to work with venture capitalists on a daily basis and raising capital gains will cost future jobs. Anyone saying otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about. I mean, this is economics 101. Even a big lefty like Paul Krugman says this in his textbooks!

I don't agree with McCain that gays can't adopt. I would support a hierarchy system for adoption. Married couples at the top, gays second and singles last. Having a lot of "aunties", without a stable father figure, caused a lot of problems for me. I think most gay people are GREAT parents, but there is still gender identity lacking in the relationship. I think a mother and father is optimal and ideal, but not always possible.

As far as gay marriage goes, I agree that it should be up to the states. Why is this a federal issue?! Marriage shouldn't even be a legal issue. If you want someone to have your rights of survivorship, etc a simple contract will do. Both straights and gays would be doing this in my optimal world. Why should Obama consider this a federal issue? I don't agree with my party on the amendment. I don't believe the government has any business in what was originally a religious issue. I mean, if you go to a church that will marry 5 guys, a donkey and a porkchop, by all means they're married. I don't know why the federal government has anything to say about it.

[ajmccarrell]

For the record, I am for the churces doing the charity work. I am also for the taxpayers not really paying that much for it. I think the churches should rely on private donations with some sort of large govt. well for, say, buildings etc. I mean all these so called religious people are all for cutting welfare until it comes to paying the Churches to do it. Then, govt. assistance is okay.

I basically agree with you. I would support radical welfare reform and a cessation of all funding of anything else. In my perfect world, you would be required to apply for at least 10 jobs a day, or seek a four year degree to qualify to be on welfare. The degree would have to be in a field that pays on average more than $40,000 per year upon graduation. The business, legal and medical fields all have degrees that do this. You would be required to go to a REAL school and not some crappy DeVry or University of Phoenix program that no one accepts. You would be on birth control, be subject to drug and alcohol tests, maintain a C average and lose the ability to vote while on welfare. Harsh?! Yes. Effective? Yes.

[ajmccarrell]

Blah Blah Blah - please comment on the accuracy of his message. Do you really think we should stay in Iraq forever? Maybe your one of the ones who actually believed W and his cronies when they flat out said Iraq's oil would pay for the war and the recovery. What utter cr*pola.

That you support the R's in any capacity is amazing. I get that Obama is no walk in the park, but can't you see what the R party has done to us and will continue to do to us if McCain is elected. It is sort of like you are Fox News, you acknowledge out of hand that W has done bad things, but you never really address what exactly McCain is going to actually do that is any different. Moreover, even if you can't vote for Obama, why are you going to vote for McCain (assuming you are)?

Your email is full of such gross generalizations and hyperbole that I have to laugh. So here goes..... :laugh:

Anyway. I think McCain would focus more on accomplishing the Iraq mission more than trying to keep critics happy, IE the way Bush handled it. I think McCain would veto more wasteful spending, he has a track record of doing so. He'd be more likely to get bipartisan support, as he has a history of actually working across the isle to make compromises. IE the gang of 14, where he negotiated the confirmation of judges, whereas Bush was happy with the stalemate. McCain would opt to build more nuclear reactors and focus more on drilling, whereas Bush has only done so now to leave a legacy. McCain would close Guantanamo and stop torture. McCain would surround himself with people knowledgable in the fields that they specialize in, instead of hiring leftovers from the Nixon Ford administration. He would focus more on finding Bin Laden. He has also said he would use the bully pulpit of the presidency to expose the biggest wasters. Whether you like McCain or not, he has generally done what he has said he would do, even if it was unpopular with his base, IE immigration reform.

Also, I never said anything about Iraq or oil prior to you bringing it up. You just painted me with a broad brush, which displays how ignorant you are. I am sick of the ad homonym attacks of the left. I think we attacked the wrong country and we should have done the job the first time back in 1991. Another thing McCain would have done differently.

[ajmccarrell]

[QUOTE=ajmccarrell;763308]

Believe me, I am for the word marriage being in no law book at all. If you want to get married, get whatever church you belong to to marry you. Then enter into contracts and wills for the disposition of propery. And, if we have the fair tax, that proposition is even more available.

The problem is, the R's do not want sep. of church and state. So, the gays are forced to work within that. It's a vicious cycle. But, your argument is specious because prohibition of types of marriages and benefits given to married people is far older than 150 years :shrug: Also, the R party wants to put gay people in jail for having sex, not to mention unmarried people and, also, married people if they perform fellatio (sodomy) on each other. That is just fukced up :shrug:

I would invite you to find a single republican in office that has said that they want to lock up gay people or unmarried people, or anyone having oral sex. That is a plain lie. No one has said anything like that in 50 years, unless you're fringy. Besides, I mean, remember Larry Craig? He's a closeted gay man and no republican is trying to kill him or arrest him for sodomy. The people who went after him the most were democrats! This is just plain absurd!

Marriage licenses have not been around for more than 150 years, that is also incorrect. The benefits given to married people have also not been around since then because we've only had a national tax system since around World War I. Health Insurance hasn't been around that long either. I don't know where you're getting your information, but it's wrong.

[strandinthewind]

I would invite you to find a single republican in office that has said that they want to lock up gay people or unmarried people, or anyone having oral sex. That is a plain lie. No one has said anything like that in 50 years, unless you're fringy. Besides, I mean, remember Larry Craig? He's a closeted gay man and no republican is trying to kill him or arrest him for sodomy. The people who went after him the most were democrats! This is just plain absurd!

As I posted earlier, the Republican administration in charge of Texas prosecuted the case of Lawrence v. Texas ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas ) - which asked the USSC to up hold the state law in Texas that made it a crime for gay people to have sex, though married and unmarried heterosexual people apparently could fellate and sodomize all they wanted (this remains unclear though). The Lawrence case overturned the Bowers case, which though immediately applicable to the prosecution (yes, they were prosecuted as two other guys were in Lawrence) of two gay guys for having sex, the GA statute applied to all sodomy (defined as all anal and oral sex regardles of sexuality or marital status).

So, there's more than one. In fact, there's a few. Capice?

I am not making this up though you may not want to believe it :shrug:

. . . Marriage licenses have not been around for more than 150 years, that is also incorrect. The benefits given to married people have also not been around since then because we've only had a national tax system since around World War I. Health Insurance hasn't been around that long either. I don't know where you're getting your information, but it's wrong.

The actual issuance of the license is hardly the point considering legal prohibitions to certain marriages have been around far longer regardless of whether a state issued license was issued. As early as 1665, the Maryland colonial assembly made interracial marriage a crime. In addition, there are more benefits then the tax system. Try property rights and inheritance rights for starters. In any event and no matter how long rights are being given based solely on religion, the issuance of rights based on religion is wrong and unconstitutional.

But and again, I agree with you because I think you said you would be for the word "marriage" to appear in no law book. If two consting adults want to marry, they should find a church to marry them and then contract for their property rights. To me, that is the fairest way. Sadly, the R party finds that idea incomprehensible and abhorrent. So we have to work with what we have, which is pathetic if you ask me. Interestingly, many far right religious leaders find the idea of the state's requirement for a license abhorrent.

For the record, do you think the state should have any business telling any teo consenting adults anything about marrying? Or, do you believe the state has the right to prohibit consenting adults from marrying based solely on religion?

[strandinthewind]

. . . I don't know why the federal government has anything to say about it.

Well, call the RNC and ask them because they are making it a huge issue :shrug: They do this to play on peoples' prejudice. That is sick. Yet, you are for these very people. How can you do that?

[strandinthewind]

I basically agree with you. I would support radical welfare reform and a cessation of all funding of anything else. In my perfect world, you would be required to apply for at least 10 jobs a day, or seek a four year degree to qualify to be on welfare. The degree would have to be in a field that pays on average more than $40,000 per year upon graduation. The business, legal and medical fields all have degrees that do this. You would be required to go to a REAL school and not some crappy DeVry or University of Phoenix program that no one accepts. You would be on birth control, be subject to drug and alcohol tests, maintain a C average and lose the ability to vote while on welfare. Harsh?! Yes. Effective? Yes.

I would be for putting the subdermal or some other relatively long lasting birth control in any pubescent girl on demand, without parental consent, and on the govt.'s dime.

[strandinthewind]

. . . Also, I never said anything about Iraq or oil prior to you bringing it up. You just painted me with a broad brush, which displays how ignorant you are. I am sick of the ad homonym attacks of the left. I think we attacked the wrong country and we should have done the job the first time back in 1991. Another thing McCain would have done differently.

Um - did I refer to you in that post? I said "Maybe" you were one of the ones, which implied asking for clarification :shrug:

As for McCain, I believe you are incorrect. McCain voted to authorize W to use force in Iraq? Then, when campaigning for W to get reelected, the "greatest critic" who claimed the war would "fail" stated praised W's leadership and stated:

“But I believe, Katie, that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators.” [NBC, 3/20/03]

“It’s clear that the end is very much in sight.” [ABC, 4/9/03]

“There’s not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shiahs. So I think they can probably get along.” [MSNBC, 4/23/03]

“This is a mission accomplished. They know how much influence Saddam Hussein had on the Iraqi people, how much more difficult it made to get their cooperation.” [This Week, ABC, 12/14/03]

“I’m confident we’re on the right course.” [ABC News, 3/7/04]

“I think the initial phases of it were so spectacularly successful that it took us all by surprise.” [CBS, 10/31/04]

“I do think that progress is being made in a lot of Iraq. Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course. If I thought we weren’t making progress, I’d be despondent.” [The Hill, 12/8/05]
___________________________________________________________

McCain can't have it both ways :shrug:

On edit - perhaps you were stating McCain would have marched on to Bagdad in the first Gulf War. If so, so would I. But, that hardly negates his cheerleading for W's invasion of Iraq in 2003, though he double talked being against it soon thereafter and then was for it as evidenced in the above quotes.

[GypsySorcerer]

You raise all these R talking points, but the bottom line is W has spent money like a silly housewife who cannot balance the checkbook and now someone has to pay the bill.


:mad: Sexist!















:laugh: (I kid.)

[strandinthewind]

. . . Whether you like McCain or not, he has generally done what he has said he would do, even if it was unpopular with his base, IE immigration reform . . . .

I think and have repeatedly said I think McCain is a decent guy. I just think his lack of caring about gay people and really all other non R supported human and civil rights is abhorrent and wrong. I just do not understand how people can support that in any way, esp. considering the R party has all but bankrupted this country. But, they do.

[strandinthewind]

:mad: Sexist!

. . .

:laugh: (I kid.)


I know - but I LOVE that visual :cool:

[strandinthewind]

. . . As far as gay marriage goes, I agree that it should be up to the states. Why is this a federal issue?! . . . .

It has to be a Federal issue because when you get married in one state, the US Const.'s 10th Amendment dicates a sister state must give "full faith and credit" to the issuing state's marriage laws. The DOMA attempted to corcumvent this, but most certainly will be struck down by The Supremes as Unconstitutional, and rightly so. Commerce would halt if states were allowed to pick and choose which interstate laws they upheld.

[strandinthewind]

. . . Also, I DON'T know that the Capital Gains thing is BS. It's true, if you tax investment MORE, people will invest LESS. It is simple logic. I haven't raised ANYONE's talking points. Like I said, I have an advanced business degree and work in business. It's simple logic. I have to work with venture capitalists on a daily basis and raising capital gains will cost future jobs. Anyone saying otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about. I mean, this is economics 101. Even a big lefty like Paul Krugman says this in his textbooks! . . . .

1. I am for getting rid of the capital gains tax.

2. The captial gains tax to my knowledge applies not only to venture capitalists and the like. It also applies to a stock market portfolio of long established companies. It is with the latter I think a cap. gains tax (at least the raise Obama promotes) will not hurt the economy. I mean how is the former Chairman of the ex Bear Stearns being taxed 20% on $400 million going to significantly effect the economy? It is not. That $80 million (which again I do not think he should be taxed on at all) will sit in some fund. In all probability, he is not going to spend that money or invest it in a start up. But, I agree with you about the former.

[ajmccarrell]

As I posted earlier, the Republican administration in charge of Texas prosecuted the case of Lawrence v. Texas ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas ) - which asked the USSC to up hold the state law in Texas that made it a crime for gay people to have sex, though married and unmarried heterosexual people apparently could fellate and sodomize all they wanted (this remains unclear though). The Lawrence case overturned the Bowers case, which though immediately applicable to the prosecution (yes, they were prosecuted as two other guys were in Lawrence) of two gay guys for having sex, the GA statute applied to all sodomy (defined as all anal and oral sex regardles of sexuality or marital status).

So, there's more than one. In fact, there's a few. Capice?

I am not making this up though you may not want to believe it :shrug:



The actual issuance of the license is hardly the point considering legal prohibitions to certain marriages have been around far longer regardless of whether a state issued license was issued. As early as 1665, the Maryland colonial assembly made interracial marriage a crime. In addition, there are more benefits then the tax system. Try property rights and inheritance rights for starters. In any event and no matter how long rights are being given based solely on religion, the issuance of rights based on religion is wrong and unconstitutional.

But and again, I agree with you because I think you said you would be for the word "marriage" to appear in no law book. If two consting adults want to marry, they should find a church to marry them and then contract for their property rights. To me, that is the fairest way. Sadly, the R party finds that idea incomprehensible and abhorrent. So we have to work with what we have, which is pathetic if you ask me. Interestingly, many far right religious leaders find the idea of the state's requirement for a license abhorrent.

For the record, do you think the state should have any business telling any teo consenting adults anything about marrying? Or, do you believe the state has the right to prohibit consenting adults from marrying based solely on religion?

The Lawrence V. Texas case is QUITE a stretch. The original law was British common law, unless you want to blame Republicans for the laws of the British. Also, any administration's justice department, whether Republican or Democrat is REQUIRED to defend the existing law whether they want to or not. It would not be the prosecution in a Supreme Court case anyway, it would be Petitioner V. Respondant, except in the originating criminal complaint. There would be no "prosecution" but a representative from the local justice department obligated to argue on the side of existing law. Otherwise, you'd have prosecutors that refuse to prosecute individuals with whom they agree or find pity. What the Lawrence case shows is not bigotry, but that our democracy works. Even Thomas in his dissent stated that the law was "uncommonly silly", but his problem had more to do with their advocating of rights that are not specifically stated in the constitution and that the majority opinion was formed with application of law that would be inconsistent with other rulings. This is frankly how bad laws get overturned. What you are advocating, it sounds like to me, is that our law & order system should decide on a case by case asis whether or not to apply stare decisis, instead of applying the existing laws equally and letting the parties fight it out up the food chain. Frankly, the law worked in Lawrence the way it was supposed to, a bad law got overturned. I don't see in this case here that any "republican" was discriminating against gay people. The republican objection was based on a strict constructionist interpretation that there were other reasons to strike down the law besides the law applied and that they believed that states had the right to govern their own morality.

Also, as far as property rights and inheritance rights go, you can own anything as "tenants in common" or any other form of title you choose where the other party gets the property upon your death. Also, writing a good will would take care of most of the issues you mention. Inheritance is another thing the government should stay the hell out of too. What right does the government have to say who I can give my stuff to when I die? If I want to create my own dynasty, why shouldn't I be allowed to?

Maryland's law concerning interacial marriage also has nothing to do with Republicans. You forget that it was a republican congress that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the help of a Democratic President. While the Republicans in Congress were working on this act, Bobby Kennedy was busy wiretapping Martin Luther King because he thought he was a threat to national security!

To answer your last question, I don't think the government should have any say in marriage, except for age of consent laws, but that's a criminal matter anyway.

[ajmccarrell]

As I posted earlier, the Republican administration in charge of Texas prosecuted the case of Lawrence v. Texas ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas ) - which asked the USSC to up hold the state law in Texas that made it a crime for gay people to have sex, though married and unmarried heterosexual people apparently could fellate and sodomize all they wanted (this remains unclear though). The Lawrence case overturned the Bowers case, which though immediately applicable to the prosecution (yes, they were prosecuted as two other guys were in Lawrence) of two gay guys for having sex, the GA statute applied to all sodomy (defined as all anal and oral sex regardles of sexuality or marital status).

So, there's more than one. In fact, there's a few. Capice?

I am not making this up though you may not want to believe it :shrug:

The Lawrence V. Texas case is QUITE a stretch. The original law was British common law, unless you want to blame Republicans for the laws of the British. Also, any administration's justice department, whether Republican or Democrat is REQUIRED to defend the existing law whether they want to or not. It would not be the prosecution in a Supreme Court case anyway, it would be Petitioner V. Respondant, except in the originating criminal complaint. There would be no "prosecution" but a representative from the local justice department obligated to argue on the side of existing law. Otherwise, you'd have prosecutors that refuse to prosecute individuals with whom they agree or find pity. What the Lawrence case shows is not bigotry, but that our democracy works. Even Thomas in his dissent stated that the law was "uncommonly silly", but his problem had more to do with their advocating of rights that are not specifically stated in the constitution and that the majority opinion was formed with application of law that would be inconsistent with other rulings. This is frankly how bad laws get overturned. What you are advocating, it sounds like to me, is that our law & order system should decide on a case by case asis whether or not to apply stare decisis, instead of applying the existing laws equally and letting the parties fight it out up the food chain. Frankly, the law worked in Lawrence the way it was supposed to, a bad law got overturned. I don't see in this case here that any "republican" was discriminating against gay people. The republican objection was based on a strict constructionist interpretation that there were other reasons to strike down the law besides the law applied and that they believed that states had the right to govern their own morality.

Also, as far as property rights and inheritance rights go, you can own anything as "tenants in common" or any other form of title you choose where the other party gets the property upon your death. Also, writing a good will would take care of most of the issues you mention. Inheritance is another thing the government should stay the hell out of too. What right does the government have to say who I can give my stuff to when I die? If I want to create my own dynasty, why shouldn't I be allowed to?

Maryland's law concerning interacial marriage also has nothing to do with Republicans. You forget that it was a republican congress that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the help of a Democratic President. While the Republicans in Congress were working on this act, Bobby Kennedy was busy wiretapping Martin Luther King because he thought he was a threat to national security!

To answer your last question, I don't think the government should have any say in marriage, except for age of consent laws, but that's a criminal matter anyway.

The actual issuance of the license is hardly the point considering legal prohibitions to certain marriages have been around far longer regardless of whether a state issued license was issued. As early as 1665, the Maryland colonial assembly made interracial marriage a crime. In addition, there are more benefits then the tax system. Try property rights and inheritance rights for starters. In any event and no matter how long rights are being given based solely on religion, the issuance of rights based on religion is wrong and unconstitutional.

But and again, I agree with you because I think you said you would be for the word "marriage" to appear in no law book. If two consting adults want to marry, they should find a church to marry them and then contract for their property rights. To me, that is the fairest way. Sadly, the R party finds that idea incomprehensible and abhorrent. So we have to work with what we have, which is pathetic if you ask me. Interestingly, many far right religious leaders find the idea of the state's requirement for a license abhorrent.

For the record, do you think the state should have any business telling any teo consenting adults anything about marrying? Or, do you believe the state has the right to prohibit consenting adults from marrying based solely on religion?

The Lawrence V. Texas case is QUITE a stretch. The original law was British common law, unless you want to blame Republicans for the laws of the British. Also, any administration's justice department, whether Republican or Democrat is REQUIRED to defend the existing law whether they want to or not. It would not be the prosecution in a Supreme Court case anyway, it would be Petitioner V. Respondant, except in the originating criminal complaint. There would be no "prosecution" but a representative from the local justice department obligated to argue on the side of existing law. Otherwise, you'd have prosecutors that refuse to prosecute individuals with whom they agree or find pity. What the Lawrence case shows is not bigotry, but that our democracy works. Even Thomas in his dissent stated that the law was "uncommonly silly", but his problem had more to do with their advocating of rights that are not specifically stated in the constitution and that the majority opinion was formed with application of law that would be inconsistent with other rulings. This is frankly how bad laws get overturned. What you are advocating, it sounds like to me, is that our law & order system should decide on a case by case asis whether or not to apply stare decisis, instead of applying the existing laws equally and letting the parties fight it out up the food chain. Frankly, the law worked in Lawrence the way it was supposed to, a bad law got overturned. I don't see in this case here that any "republican" was discriminating against gay people. The republican objection was based on a strict constructionist interpretation that there were other reasons to strike down the law besides the law applied and that they believed that states had the right to govern their own morality.

Also, as far as property rights and inheritance rights go, you can own anything as "tenants in common" or any other form of title you choose where the other party gets the property upon your death. Also, writing a good will would take care of most of the issues you mention. Inheritance is another thing the government should stay the hell out of too. What right does the government have to say who I can give my stuff to when I die? If I want to create my own dynasty, why shouldn't I be allowed to?

Maryland's law concerning interacial marriage also has nothing to do with Republicans. You forget that it was a republican congress that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the help of a Democratic President. While the Republicans in Congress were working on this act, Bobby Kennedy was busy wiretapping Martin Luther King because he thought he was a threat to national security!

To answer your last question, I don't think the government should have any say in marriage, except for age of consent laws, but that's a criminal matter anyway.

[ajmccarrell]

Well, call the RNC and ask them because they are making it a huge issue :shrug: They do this to play on peoples' prejudice. That is sick. Yet, you are for these very people. How can you do that?


Because someone who agrees with me 75% of the time is not my enemy. I am more libertarian, but libertarians don't win elections. I couldn't possibily be a democrat. I am more Republican than not. Besides, the party isn't exactly unified on the issue.

[ajmccarrell]

I would be for putting the subdermal or some other relatively long lasting birth control in any pubescent girl on demand, without parental consent, and on the govt.'s dime.

That is WAY too much of an infringement of the parent's rights as far as I'm concerned. Our children are OUR children and not the governments. If the government takes control of the parent's job, the parent is less likely to do so, which means more kids on government programs. Not a good idea.

[ajmccarrell]

Um - did I refer to you in that post? I said "Maybe" you were one of the ones, which implied asking for clarification :shrug:

As for McCain, I believe you are incorrect. McCain voted to authorize W to use force in Iraq? Then, when campaigning for W to get reelected, the "greatest critic" who claimed the war would "fail" stated praised W's leadership and stated:

“But I believe, Katie, that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators.” [NBC, 3/20/03]

“It’s clear that the end is very much in sight.” [ABC, 4/9/03]

“There’s not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shiahs. So I think they can probably get along.” [MSNBC, 4/23/03]

“This is a mission accomplished. They know how much influence Saddam Hussein had on the Iraqi people, how much more difficult it made to get their cooperation.” [This Week, ABC, 12/14/03]

“I’m confident we’re on the right course.” [ABC News, 3/7/04]

“I think the initial phases of it were so spectacularly successful that it took us all by surprise.” [CBS, 10/31/04]

“I do think that progress is being made in a lot of Iraq. Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course. If I thought we weren’t making progress, I’d be despondent.” [The Hill, 12/8/05]
___________________________________________________________

McCain can't have it both ways :shrug:

On edit - perhaps you were stating McCain would have marched on to Bagdad in the first Gulf War. If so, so would I. But, that hardly negates his cheerleading for W's invasion of Iraq in 2003, though he double talked being against it soon thereafter and then was for it as evidenced in the above quotes.

I think, as many of us did back between 2003 and 2005, that things would be much different. As early as 2005, McCain started criticising the way the war was being handled. You can be for the initial war, but against the way it was handled afterwards. I don't see the inconsistency, unless you are not allowing for things not turning outas originally thought. McCain pushed for the surge and it worked. He butted heads with Rumsfeld a lot and eventually won out.

[ajmccarrell]

1. I am for getting rid of the capital gains tax.

2. The captial gains tax to my knowledge applies not only to venture capitalists and the like. It also applies to a stock market portfolio of long established companies. It is with the latter I think a cap. gains tax (at least the raise Obama promotes) will not hurt the economy. I mean how is the former Chairman of the ex Bear Stearns being taxed 20% on $400 million going to significantly effect the economy? It is not. That $80 million (which again I do not think he should be taxed on at all) will sit in some fund. In all probability, he is not going to spend that money or invest it in a start up. But, I agree with you about the former.

Again, you are cherry picking here. Bringing up BearsStearns is throwing out a red herring. Maybe 20% on that guy won't hurt anything. However, Obama stated he would like to see the minimum rate at 20% and the next tier at 40%. Capital gains tax is applied to any investment period. It applies to the guy trying to fund his retirement b buying rental homes, it applies to any of us who invest in 401(k)'s, anyone who invests in small business, etc. If you are taking 40% of any investment profit if you make over $200,000.00 a year, most small businesses will end up going overseas too. Hell, I'd move to Australia or move my money to some overseas company who wants it instead of a greedy US government that wants to punish success. Obama's plan would not just apply to multi-millionaires, but anyone with a successful small business, IE the guy who owns the car lot, the independant supermarket, the plumbing outsit, the construction company owner, the subcontractor, the building developer, the landlord, etc. Basically, anyone with any money in anything organized in a corporation. Taxing investment at that level costs the small business jobs, and at best, costs you your raise. I am never for "taxing the rich" because I've never been hired by a poor person. Under Obama's plan, if your AGI is above $200,000.00 you are paying out 40% of your profit to the government, on top of the other taxes that you would already be paying. It would paralize small business entirely and we would see a global depression that makes our current slowdown look like the biggest boom in history within his first term. Frankly, if you want to vote for the guy, you deserve to be out of work. Remember, it is people that make over $200,000.00 per year that do all of the hiring.

Basically party affiliation has this choice: I give up my way of life and my economic security and vote democrat, or I endure a bunch of morality crap from the republicans that has no chance of becoming law and at least maintain what I have.

[BombaySapphire3]

However, Obama is NO alternative. No wait, that's already been done..... and it is the reason some arrogant and ignorant clown like Obama can become president.

and this coming from someone that more than likely voted for the abomination that is George W Bush twice?

[strandinthewind]

The Lawrence V. Texas case is QUITE a stretch . . . .

No, it is not. The R admin in the Lawrence case (which was W's administration while gov. ) arrested and proscuted two gay guys for having consensual sex in the privacy of their own home. That directly responds to and negates your statement in post 214 of this thread:

I would invite you to find a single republican in office that has said that they want to lock up gay people or unmarried people, or anyone having oral sex. That is a plain lie. No one has said anything like that in 50 years, unless you're fringy.

So, it is not a stretch. It is exactly what happened. Can you not see that?

So you know -- here are the facts of Lawrence:

The petitioners, medical technologist John Geddes Lawrence, then 55, and Tyron Garner then 31, were alleged to have been engaging in consensual anal sex in Lawrence's apartment in the outskirts of Houston between 10:30 and 11 p.m. on September 17, 1998 when Harris County sheriff's deputy Joseph Quinn entered the unlocked apartment, with his weapon drawn, arresting the two.

The arrests stemmed from a false report of a "weapons disturbance" in their home — that because of a domestic disturbance or robbery, there was a man with a gun "going crazy." The person who filed the report, neighbor Robert Royce Eubanks, then 40, had earlier been accused of harassing the plaintiffs. Despite the false report, probable cause to enter the home was not at issue in the case; Eubanks, with whom Garner was romantically involved at the time of the arrest, later admitted that he was lying, pleaded no contest to charges of filing a false police report, and served 15 days in jail.

In the end and regardless of political party (though the R's currently are the leaders in the area) -- legislating private consenual sex is never going to work and results in insane laws. But, that is what the R party is all about these days. So, when you vote for them, you vote for that.

[strandinthewind]

. . . Also, as far as property rights and inheritance rights go, you can own anything as "tenants in common" or any other form of title you choose where the other party gets the property upon your death. Also, writing a good will would take care of most of the issues you mention. Inheritance is another thing the government should stay the hell out of too. What right does the government have to say who I can give my stuff to when I die? If I want to create my own dynasty, why shouldn't I be allowed to?

Well, the govt. says it all the time. On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:

joint parenting;

joint adoption;

joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents); status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;

joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;

dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;

immigration and residency for partners from other countries;

inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;

joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;

inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate); benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare; spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;

veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;

joint filing of customs claims when traveling;

wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;

bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;

decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;

crime victims' recovery benefits;

loss of consortium tort benefits;

domestic violence protection orders;

judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;

Federal and state benefits like Social Security survivir benefits

and more

Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.

Moreover, here is an interesting article:

Why This Is A Serious Civil Rights Issue

When gay people say that this is a civil rights issue, we are referring to matters of civil justice, which often can be quite serious - and can have life-damaging, even life-threatening consequences.

One of these is the fact that in most states, we cannot make medical decisions for our partners in an emergency. Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may have been estranged from us for decades, who are often hostile to us, and can and frequently do, totally ignore our wishes regarding the treatment of our partners. If a hostile family wishes to exclude us from the hospital room, they may legally do so in most states. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility -- with results consciously intended to be as inimical to the interests of the patient as possible! Is this fair?

Upon death, in many cases, even very carefully drawn wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny us the right to visit a partner's hospital bed or grave. As survivors, estranged families can, in nearly all states, even sieze a real estate property that a gay couple may have been buying together for many years, quickly sell it at the largest possible loss, and stick the surviving partner with all the remaining mortgage obligations on a property that partner no longer owns, leaving him out on the street, penniless. There are hundreds of examples of this, even in many cases where the gay couple had been extremely careful to do everything right under current law, in a determined effort to protect their rights. Is this fair?

If our partners are arrested, we can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do. In court cases, a partner's testimony can be simply ruled irrelevant as heresay by a hostile judge, having no more weight in law than the testimony of a complete stranger. If a partner is jailed or imprisoned, visitation rights by the partner can, in most cases, can be denied on the whim of a hostile family and the cooperation of a homophobic judge, unrestrained by any law or precedent. Conjugal visits, a well-established right of heterosexual married couples in some settings, are simply not available to gay couples. Is this fair?

These are far from being just theoretical issues; they happen with surprising frequency. Almost any older gay couple can tell you numerous horror stories of friends and acquaintences who have been victimized in such ways. One couple I know uses the following line in the "sig" lines on their email: "...partners and lovers for 40 years, yet still strangers before the law." Why, as a supposedly advanced society, should we continue to tolerate this kind of injustice?

These are all civil rights issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with the ecclesiastical origins of marriage; they are matters that have become enshrined in state laws by legislation or court precedent over the years in many ways that exclude us from the rights that legally married couples enjoy and even consider their constitutional right. This is why we say it is very much a serious civil rights issue; it has nothing to do with who performs the ceremony, whether it is performed in a church or courthouse or the local country club, or whether an announcement about it is accepted for publication in the local newspaper.

____________________________________________

So, to say (general speaker not really you though you implied it) that all rights can be done by contract is untrue. Moreover, why should gay and unmarried straight people have to pay thousands of dollars to obtain some, but not all, of what married people get for free based solely on a religious argument?


Maryland's law concerning interacial marriage also has nothing to do with Republicans. You forget that it was a republican congress that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the help of a Democratic President. While the Republicans in Congress were working on this act, Bobby Kennedy was busy wiretapping Martin Luther King because he thought he was a threat to national security!

To answer your last question, I don't think the government should have any say in marriage, except for age of consent laws, but that's a criminal matter anyway.

My point had nothing to do the R's. I was refuting (successfully) your statement about marriage liscenses and the prohibition of marriages in general.

[strandinthewind]

That is WAY too much of an infringement of the parent's rights as far as I'm concerned. Our children are OUR children and not the governments. If the government takes control of the parent's job, the parent is less likely to do so, which means more kids on government programs. Not a good idea.

I don't really care about the parents' rights. I am more for the woman's rights. She has to carry the baby and we have to (usually) pay for it.

[strandinthewind]

I think, as many of us did back between 2003 and 2005, that things would be much different. As early as 2005, McCain started criticising the way the war was being handled. You can be for the initial war, but against the way it was handled afterwards. I don't see the inconsistency, unless you are not allowing for things not turning outas originally thought. McCain pushed for the surge and it worked. He butted heads with Rumsfeld a lot and eventually won out.

If the surge worked so well (and it did work) then why can't we begin to leave? Why aren't the Iraqi's taking control of their nation? Why isn't the oil rev. reimbursing us as W said it would do?

Also, don't you realize W went there under the guise of freedom when the real intent was so American companies could gouge Iraq and the American taxpayer would have to pay for it? There was a meeting of American companies and they openly talking about the huge financial profitability of working in Iraq.

[strandinthewind]

Again, you are cherry picking here. Bringing up BearsStearns is throwing out a red herring. Maybe 20% on that guy won't hurt anything. However, Obama stated he would like to see the minimum rate at 20% and the next tier at 40%. Capital gains tax is applied to any investment period. It applies to the guy trying to fund his retirement b buying rental homes, it applies to any of us who invest in 401(k)'s, anyone who invests in small business, etc. If you are taking 40% of any investment profit if you make over $200,000.00 a year, most small businesses will end up going overseas too. Hell, I'd move to Australia or move my money to some overseas company who wants it instead of a greedy US government that wants to punish success. Obama's plan would not just apply to multi-millionaires, but anyone with a successful small business, IE the guy who owns the car lot, the independant supermarket, the plumbing outsit, the construction company owner, the subcontractor, the building developer, the landlord, etc. Basically, anyone with any money in anything organized in a corporation. Taxing investment at that level costs the small business jobs, and at best, costs you your raise. I am never for "taxing the rich" because I've never been hired by a poor person. Under Obama's plan, if your AGI is above $200,000.00 you are paying out 40% of your profit to the government, on top of the other taxes that you would already be paying. It would paralize small business entirely and we would see a global depression that makes our current slowdown look like the biggest boom in history within his first term. Frankly, if you want to vote for the guy, you deserve to be out of work. Remember, it is people that make over $200,000.00 per year that do all of the hiring.

Basically party affiliation has this choice: I give up my way of life and my economic security and vote democrat, or I endure a bunch of morality crap from the republicans that has no chance of becoming law and at least maintain what I have.

So, you did poorly under Clinton - the largest economy in decades :shrug:

If you did, you were way behind the curve http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-03.html

Caveat - I readily admit Clinton did not do it by himelf -- no Pres. could. But, he did do alot.

[strandinthewind]

Because someone who agrees with me 75% of the time is not my enemy. I am more libertarian, but libertarians don't win elections. I couldn't possibily be a democrat. I am more Republican than not. Besides, the party isn't exactly unified on the issue.

If the blacks were still in the back of the bus -- would you say the same thing? All, for a few more dollars in your pocket? That is a little alarming to say the least. How many times do you have to touch the hot stove before you realize it burns?

[gldstwmn]

I think we attacked the wrong country and we should have done the job the first time back in 1991.

We did do the job the first time in 1991. Saddam had nothing but smoke and mirrors left when we went in there this time. Also, the United States does not go around executing leaders of other countries, if that's what you're referring to by your doing the job comment. Just remember, you are young and the world and history still has a lot to teach you.

[gldstwmn]

First off, I don't trust the party to curb spending. I do trust McCain to do so, because he has a track record of stopping wasteful spending.

Like all the money we're spending on the war which is bankrupting this counrty? He thinks the war should go on for another 100 years.

[ajmccarrell]

No, it is not. The R admin in the Lawrence case (which was W's administration while gov. ) arrested and proscuted two gay guys for having consensual sex in the privacy of their own home. That directly responds to and negates your statement in post 214 of this thread:



So, it is not a stretch. It is exactly what happened. Can you not see that?

So you know -- here are the facts of Lawrence:

The petitioners, medical technologist John Geddes Lawrence, then 55, and Tyron Garner then 31, were alleged to have been engaging in consensual anal sex in Lawrence's apartment in the outskirts of Houston between 10:30 and 11 p.m. on September 17, 1998 when Harris County sheriff's deputy Joseph Quinn entered the unlocked apartment, with his weapon drawn, arresting the two.

The arrests stemmed from a false report of a "weapons disturbance" in their home — that because of a domestic disturbance or robbery, there was a man with a gun "going crazy." The person who filed the report, neighbor Robert Royce Eubanks, then 40, had earlier been accused of harassing the plaintiffs. Despite the false report, probable cause to enter the home was not at issue in the case; Eubanks, with whom Garner was romantically involved at the time of the arrest, later admitted that he was lying, pleaded no contest to charges of filing a false police report, and served 15 days in jail.

In the end and regardless of political party (though the R's currently are the leaders in the area) -- legislating private consenual sex is never going to work and results in insane laws. But, that is what the R party is all about these days. So, when you vote for them, you vote for that.

Since the Republicans were the leaders in the area, they are all responsible for the actions of the cops? That is a stretch still. It is more likely that, because a neighbor complained about a weapon, that the police decided to arrest them on the sodomy charges until they could investigate them further. That happens in law enforcement. You can find people that were picked up on minor charges in the meantime while the police investigate a larger charge.

[ajmccarrell]

Like all the money we're spending on the war which is bankrupting this counrty? He thinks the war should go on for another 100 years.

He didn't say that about the war. He said that he cares about American casualties and that he would win the war no matter how long it takes.

The basic problem here is that we went to war in the first place, but it would be horrendous to pull out now. I mean, do you know what happened when we pulled out of Vietnam? The death toll went up by more than ten times the previous death rates. Iraq would be worse if we left now.

I agree we shouldn't have done it in the first place, but imagine the death and destruction if we left prematurely.

[ajmccarrell]

We did do the job the first time in 1991. Saddam had nothing but smoke and mirrors left when we went in there this time. Also, the United States does not go around executing leaders of other countries, if that's what you're referring to by your doing the job comment. Just remember, you are young and the world and history still has a lot to teach you.


Well, you should learn your history then before lecturing someone else. The US did not go in to Iraw unilaterally in 1991. We had a UN mandate and the authority to assassinate Saddam. The US also DOES go around assassinating leaders. Remember Nuremberg? In fact, there is a current civil suit against Henry Kissinger right now because of an action he took as part of the Nixon administration to assassinate the leader of a South American country and the family of the interpreter sued Kissinger because he died in the process. Back to your original point, if we had assassinated Saddam in 1991 and set up a government (as we had a UN authorization) when the Iraqi's were more willing, we would have done the job. We didn't do that. Even Former President Bush has admitted on a Nightline interview 5 years ago that he wished he had assassinated Saddam. Apparently, you don't know your history. Don't underestimate me either.

[ajmccarrell]

and this coming from someone that more than likely voted for the abomination that is George W Bush twice?

Yes, I like the guy for the most part. He's made a few HUGE blunders. Most people hate him because they don't know what the president actually does or is supposed to do. He generally gets the blame for pretty much everything that goes on, whether deserved or not. Most people blame the president for everything from their property taxes to the economy. Neither of which the president can directly control.

[ajmccarrell]

:laugh:Well, the govt. says it all the time. On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:

joint parenting;

joint adoption;

joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents); status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;

joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;

dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;

immigration and residency for partners from other countries;

inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;

joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;

inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate); benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare; spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;

veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;

joint filing of customs claims when traveling;

wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;

bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;

decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;

crime victims' recovery benefits;

loss of consortium tort benefits;

domestic violence protection orders;

judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;

Federal and state benefits like Social Security survivir benefits

and more

Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.

Moreover, here is an interesting article:

Why This Is A Serious Civil Rights Issue

When gay people say that this is a civil rights issue, we are referring to matters of civil justice, which often can be quite serious - and can have life-damaging, even life-threatening consequences.

One of these is the fact that in most states, we cannot make medical decisions for our partners in an emergency. Instead, the hospitals are usually forced by state laws to go to the families who may have been estranged from us for decades, who are often hostile to us, and can and frequently do, totally ignore our wishes regarding the treatment of our partners. If a hostile family wishes to exclude us from the hospital room, they may legally do so in most states. It is even not uncommon for hostile families to make decisions based on their hostility -- with results consciously intended to be as inimical to the interests of the patient as possible! Is this fair?

Upon death, in many cases, even very carefully drawn wills and durable powers of attorney have proven to not be enough if a family wishes to challenge a will, overturn a custody decision, or exclude us from a funeral or deny us the right to visit a partner's hospital bed or grave. As survivors, estranged families can, in nearly all states, even sieze a real estate property that a gay couple may have been buying together for many years, quickly sell it at the largest possible loss, and stick the surviving partner with all the remaining mortgage obligations on a property that partner no longer owns, leaving him out on the street, penniless. There are hundreds of examples of this, even in many cases where the gay couple had been extremely careful to do everything right under current law, in a determined effort to protect their rights. Is this fair?

If our partners are arrested, we can be compelled to testify against them or provide evidence against them, which legally married couples are not forced to do. In court cases, a partner's testimony can be simply ruled irrelevant as heresay by a hostile judge, having no more weight in law than the testimony of a complete stranger. If a partner is jailed or imprisoned, visitation rights by the partner can, in most cases, can be denied on the whim of a hostile family and the cooperation of a homophobic judge, unrestrained by any law or precedent. Conjugal visits, a well-established right of heterosexual married couples in some settings, are simply not available to gay couples. Is this fair?

These are far from being just theoretical issues; they happen with surprising frequency. Almost any older gay couple can tell you numerous horror stories of friends and acquaintences who have been victimized in such ways. One couple I know uses the following line in the "sig" lines on their email: "...partners and lovers for 40 years, yet still strangers before the law." Why, as a supposedly advanced society, should we continue to tolerate this kind of injustice?

These are all civil rights issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with the ecclesiastical origins of marriage; they are matters that have become enshrined in state laws by legislation or court precedent over the years in many ways that exclude us from the rights that legally married couples enjoy and even consider their constitutional right. This is why we say it is very much a serious civil rights issue; it has nothing to do with who performs the ceremony, whether it is performed in a church or courthouse or the local country club, or whether an announcement about it is accepted for publication in the local newspaper.

____________________________________________

So, to say (general speaker not really you though you implied it) that all rights can be done by contract is untrue. Moreover, why should gay and unmarried straight people have to pay thousands of dollars to obtain some, but not all, of what married people get for free based solely on a religious argument?




My point had nothing to do the R's. I was refuting (successfully) your statement about marriage liscenses and the prohibition of marriages in general.


A lot of states, including my own, DO confer a lot of these rights on gays. We have most of these on the books. A lot of what you said is just plain wrong. Gay partners CAN get protection orders, CAN sue for wrongful death, can get Health Insurance, CAN adopt, etc. If you think that getting married is free, you never had to pay for a wedding! LOL! :laugh: Anyway, I think we agree more than not. Like I said before, I would like to remove marriage from the legal lexicon. All of these rights should be transferable through contracts, in my prefect world that is.

[ajmccarrell]

I don't really care about the parents' rights. I am more for the woman's rights. She has to carry the baby and we have to (usually) pay for it.

Not with you there either. If we're going to have abortion rights, I think the man should have say in that matter also. If he doesn't want to support the child, he should have a say in aborting it. Otherwise, it's a sexist law. I mean, a woman who doesn't want to be a mother is called pro-choice, but a man who doesn't want to be a father is called a dead-beat or any variety of other things. I mean, you can deduct alimony, and alimony can be subtracted from your income for low-income housing qualifications, etc. However, child support cannot be. The law is set up in a very discriminatory fashion. If you don't want a kid, do what every married woman does and stop having sex. :laugh:

[ajmccarrell]

If the blacks were still in the back of the bus -- would you say the same thing? All, for a few more dollars in your pocket? That is a little alarming to say the least. How many times do you have to touch the hot stove before you realize it burns?

What are you talking about? You forget that the Republicans passed the 1964 Civil Rights bill, while Bobby Kennedy was wiretapping MLK. If it were up to the Democratic party, the blacks would STILL be on the back of the bus.

If you study social psychology at all, you will see that welfare programs are basically racist. Affirmative Action is racist. Not against whites, but against the blacks it supposedly helps. Take for example salmon that are hatched in hatcheries. The wild salmon will not mate with them and they do not do as well in the wild because they never had to fight for survival. Then take a look at the human debris left behind after Katrina. People with a survival instinct left. Those without did not, and there was quite a bit of publicity about the fact that a lot of them stayed because they were waiting for welfare checks. These people stayed poor because we made it easy to be poor and encouraged them to stay on welfare because human nature always follows the path of least resistance. If the choice was starvation or improving one's self, they would do it.

This is coming from a guy who was homeless twice and was dirt poor for a long time. I could go on and on about hitchhiking 40 miles to school (which I really had to do) and a bunch of other crap. What it boils down to is that if you really want to succeed in this country, you can. We don't need the government dehumanizing people with racist welfare programs designed to leave people in poverty and dependance. People like to talk about failed policies, how about the war on poverty? We've had 60 years of generation after generation living in squalor on welfare because we are handing a guy a fish every day instead of teaching him how to fish. This is why I support the idea of mandating college as a condition to be on welfare. It's the antidote to the racism of the Democratic party.

[strandinthewind]

. . . Most people hate him because they don't know what the president actually does or is supposed to do . . . .

Actually, I think most hate him because around 5,000 of our soldiers are dead and many times that wounded - and all for a war he lied to get us into. That was all him - no one else, save for Cheney.

[strandinthewind]

What are you talking about? You forget that the Republicans passed the 1964 Civil Rights bill, while Bobby Kennedy was wiretapping MLK. If it were up to the Democratic party, the blacks would STILL be on the back of the bus . . . .

Last I checked Kennedy (who introduced the bill on July 11, 1963) and LBJ (who railroaded the bill) were Democrats :shrug: Moreover, the House and Senate were overwhelmingly D controlled. This does not support your argument in any way.

If you are refering to the Southern Democrats' attempt to block the passage of the Act, these same people (the religious far right) are now in control of the current R party. This also does not in any way support your argument.

On edit - - here is a history lesson :wavey:

The Civil Rights Movement: 1963-1968

President Lyndon Johnson foresaw the end of the Solid South when he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The New Deal Coalition began to fracture as more Democratic leaders voiced support for civil rights, upsetting the party's traditional base of conservative Southern Democrats and ethnic Catholics in Northern cities. After Harry Truman's platform gave strong support to civil rights and anti-segregation laws during the 1948 Democratic National Convention, many Southern Democratic delegates decided to split from the Party and formed the "Dixiecrats," led by South Carolina governor Strom Thurmond (who, as a Senator, would later join the Republican Party [and who has an illegitimate child with a black woman HYPOCRITE ] ). Over the next few years, many conservative Democrats in the "Solid South" drifted away from the party. On the other hand, African Americans, who had traditionally given strong support to the Republican Party since its inception as the "anti-slavery party," shifted to the Democratic Party due to its New Deal economic opportunities and support for civil rights—largely due to New Deal relief programs, patronage offers, and the advocacy of civil rights by First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt. Although Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower carried half the South in 1952 and 1956, and Senator Barry Goldwater also carried five Southern states in 1964, Democrat Jimmy Carter carried all of the South except Virginia, and there was no long-term realignment until Ronald Reagan's sweeping victories in the South in 1980 and 1984.

The party's dramatic reversal on civil rights issues culminated when Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On doing so he commented, "We [the Democrats] have lost the South for a generation." Meanwhile, the Republicans, led again by Richard Nixon, were beginning to implement their Southern strategy, which aimed to resist federal encroachment on the states, while appealing to conservative and moderate white Southerners in the rapidly growing cities and suburbs of the South. Southern Democrats took notice of the fact that 1964 Republican Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater had voted against the Civil Rights Act, and in the presidential election of 1964, Goldwater's only electoral victories outside his home state of Arizona were in the states of the Deep South.

The year 1968 was a trying one for the party as well as the United States. In January, even though it was a military defeat for the Viet Cong, the Tet Offensive began to turn American public opinion against the Vietnam War. Senator Eugene McCarthy rallied anti-war forces on college campuses and came within a few percentage points of defeating Johnson in the New Hampshire primary. Four days later Senator Robert Kennedy, brother of the former president, entered the race. Johnson stunned the nation on March 31 when he withdrew from the race; four weeks later his vice-president, Hubert H. Humphrey, entered. Kennedy and McCarthy traded primary victories while Humphrey stayed out the primaries and gathered the support of labor unions and the big-city bosses. Kennedy won the California primary on June 4 and may have been able to wrest the nomination from Humphrey, but he was assassinated in Los Angeles. (Even as Kennedy won California, Humphrey had already amassed 1000 of the 1312 delegate votes needed for the nomination, while Kennedy had about 700. ) During the 1968 Democratic National Convention, while police and the National Guard violently confronted anti-war protesters on the streets and parks of Chicago, the Democrats nominated Humphrey. Meanwhile Alabama's Democratic governor George C. Wallace launched a third-party campaign and at one point was running second to the Republican candidate Richard M. Nixon. Nixon barely won, with the Democrats retaining control of Congress.

The degree to which the Southern Democrats had abandoned the party became evident in the 1968 presidential election when the electoral votes of every former Confederate state except Texas went to either Republican Richard Nixon or independent George Wallace, the latter a former Southern Democrat. Defeated Democrat Hubert Humphrey's electoral votes came mainly from the Northern states, marking a dramatic shift from the 1948 election 20 years earlier, when the losing Republican candidate's electoral votes were mainly concentrated in the Northern states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Democratic_Party#The_Civil_Rights_Movement:_1963-1968 (which has the rest of the history)

[strandinthewind]

:laugh:


A lot of states, including my own, DO confer a lot of these rights on gays. We have most of these on the books. A lot of what you said is just plain wrong. Gay partners CAN get protection orders, CAN sue for wrongful death, can get Health Insurance, CAN adopt, etc. If you think that getting married is free, you never had to pay for a wedding! LOL! :laugh: Anyway, I think we agree more than not. Like I said before, I would like to remove marriage from the legal lexicon. All of these rights should be transferable through contracts, in my prefect world that is.

Just because some rights are conferred by some states (which the R, not D, party overwhelmingly opposes in every way possible mind you) - that does not make it any better in the long run. That is like asking the cop that is beating you to slow down instead of asking him to stop :shrug: In the end, without Federal protection, gays will continue to be discrimminated against because the current R party uses them as scapegoats. Look at McCain's "gays should never adopt" BS. There is no empirical evidence to support this law no matter how many times McCain says it. So, we see more religious BS.

[strandinthewind]

. . . Affirmative Action is racist . . . .

I think the reasons behind Affirmative Action have run the course. I do not think anyone under the age of 50 needs to be paid back through a leg up for the wrongs of the past.

I think Affirmative Action should stay in place (with better safeguards) but be based on poverty alone. I think more people are better served that way.

[gldstwmn]

He didn't say that about the war. He said that he cares about American casualties and that he would win the war no matter how long it takes.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-VRAshmSdps&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-VRAshmSdps&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>



The basic problem here is that we went to war in the first place, but it would be horrendous to pull out now. I mean, do you know what happened when we pulled out of Vietnam?

Yes. I watched it on the news every night. I don't think there's a single person here who would tell you they weren't glad that clusterfukc was over. There are always going to be consequences.