yeah most of the others weren't all that serious, but still. I think we need some fresh blood in there - NOT a Clinton nor Bush.

I can more than understand your disgust with past.

I honestly didn't like her 8-16 years ago. Thought of her as a femi-Nazi, thought running for Senate in NY was slimy...

I guess over the last several years I've actually listened to her, and not put her in the neat little stereotypical boxes that we all love to do to public figures. I hear people call her disengenuine. Its not that I disagree, but I don't think Obama or any of the others are genuine either. They just mask it better. I don't agree with all her stances, but I think she takes a reasoned approach and has a wealth of experienced and sound advisors. She has more depth to her answers than the pretty words used by Obama. They are all power hungry.

Its not just the President you elect, but who you think they'll bring in as cabinet members. I think Clinton's will be far more in line with what I want in a cabinet than any of the others. The others will either go with unexperienced, or old school, or a brand of far left or far right that I do not support in the least.

When I take the various candidate tests (MSNBC has one as well), I come closest to McCain and Obama - mostly because my positions don't fall neatly along party lines. But as I've said before, Obama lacks experience, is naive and refuses to admit it, and fails to make decisions because he doesn't want to upset anyone. He speaks of change, but to afraid to make change, for fear it would go on his record. He's just as disengenuine as Clinton - to hear him talk to African Americans like he is one of them, using their language, is pathetic. He isn't. To court the Hispanic vote like he's 1st generation immigrant is wrong. To portray himself as having international experience because he spent a few years in elementary in Indonesia is wrong. To portray himself as a common man is wrong as well. He was just as privileged and sheltered as Clinton - a different background, certainly, but not one of the common man. If there was another 9/11, I would be most uncomfortable with Obama as President. McCain's ok. I wouldn't be upset with him as President.

As far as Clinton's stance (1st time) on Iraq, she has stood by her decision based on the information at the time. Had the information been clearer, she would have voted differently. I also think she voted for it because she didn't want to be portrayed as unsupportive. That would of had its own backlash as well, and shown a divided nation to the world. It was easy for a relatively unknown Obama to make statements against it. He even stated in an interview that he couldn't say how he would have voted had he been in Congress at the time since he did not have access to the intelligence reports Congressmen/women made their decisions on. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-..._and_iraq.html

I was against the war in Iraq not for any of the normal given reasons - WMD or no WMD? Are they a threat or not? Then (later) freedom for the Iraqi people, making the world more democratic. I was against it because I knew it was a civil war waiting to happen. Countries that are so ethnically divided, polarized as Iraq unfortunately need the equivalent to a dictator to suppress civil war. Its a nasty part of life, but democracies don't work in polarized nations. http://obama.senate.gov/issues/iraq/
Not bad reasoning, but not exactly profound or inspired either. And easy to make a speech and not be required to vote. I think he would have voted "present" had he been in Congress, his way of not being accountable for his votes.

This is the reason Obama appeals to me despite his political positions. He isn't a polarizing figure. He speaks respectfully of other peoples beliefs. He seems to take the time to understand the oppositions perspective. Clinton, on the other hand, carries the burden of being extremely polarizing. I think our country needs to tone down the rhetoric for a while.

I think she voted for it because Democrats have been afraid for a long time to be painted with the "soft on defense" brush. She wanted to appear tough. Also, the public was still out for blood after 9/11. She was afraid to go against public opinion polls.

I didn't trust anything Bush was saying during the lead-up to war. How could she have? WMDs? No way. The inspectors had access to every facility in Iraq, and found nothing. Since then, all we found were some old corroded non functioning shells left over from the Iran-Iraq war. Bush was lying about WMDs, and I suspected it at the time. Clinton should have too. The burden of proof to go to war should be extraordinarily high. It wasn't with Iraq, and there was no reason for her to vote for war.

She has created this nice excuse that Bush deceived her, but what does that say about her? That she can be deceived?

I am a Democrat, and I was ashamed of all the members of my party who voted for the war. They were a bunch of spineless wimps rolling over so Bush could have his way with them. All because they were afraid to stand up to him and the public. True leaders wouldn't have acted that way.

If Clinton was a true leader, she would have stood up to Bush and public opinion. She would have changed public opinion instead of following it.

I think Obama would have his pick of the best and would take it. Clinton's braintrust includes a brand of polarizing old left that needs some airing.

I think they both have pretty good middle class stories. Hillary growing up in the 50s in the midwest and Obama in Hawaii/Indonesia in the 60s-70s with his mom and grandparents. And they are as common as all the strange histories and family constructions you can find anywhere. Their parents worked and the ambitious smart kids went to college. Where's the uncommon privilege and shelter?

Seems like running for president on a ticket of hope and change, taking on the party's heir apparent is pretty boldly decisive and out there and on his permanent record, and has upset some peeps. He seems to be pretty clear on how serious and hard this venture will be, maybe not so naive as just less cynical.

I feel I should add that although I admire Obama and long to break these polarizing old dynasties, I think Clinton is a close second for me based on her generally solid policy positions, most notably healthcare. I'm wondering what a combined ticket would could portend...

What exactly about her healthcare ideas appeals to you?

Some would view an upper middle class upbringing as privileged and sheltered. I did not say wealthy. They do not come from blue collar roots - the common man. Understanding those that live paycheck to paycheck for decades. Those that choose between health insurance and a car payment or groceries. Neither have experienced this, although Clinton is actually closer with her background. She is more solidly middle class.

Obama went to a private college prep school in Hawaii from the 5th grade on. Nothing common about that.

His campaign is just an ego boost - not decisiveness. Don't be fooled. What will Obama's next vote of "present" be on? If he can't decide to protect or not protect identities of sexual assualt victims, what can he decide on?

Hitlery Clinton is SSDD. She is NOT change. We are just swapping these dynasties back and forth. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. No more. Put an end to it now. Same coin, different side.

Well, you have defined the same reasons why so many feared Kennedy as President in 1959. Missing, though, is a fear based in religion. That was another reason why many saw Kennedy as a poor choice for president.

Yeah really - after she's done we can have President Jeb :lol:

Oh please do tell. I need to know this before the election.
C'mon -gimme, gimme, gimme.

Bias and ignorance by one who knows only using a conservative agenda is demonstated again.

As usual, classicman knows because he was there in 1959. Oh. He need not be there. Extremist conservative bias is enough to know.

classicman - the day you posted something was not convervative enough for you is the day we know you don't bother to learn before knowing. An intelligent classicman would have been interested in learning those comparison. Classicman's post is a blunt obvious insult. Being a moderate means learning facts before knowing. But classicman knows all about Kennedy because he were there. Did god tell you how to know?

Meanwhile, much of aimeecc's criticisms of Obama were similar criticisms of 1959 John Kennedy. He had no experience. He was a poor Senator. He could not possiblity relate to the poor and downtrodded Hispanics, WV Hillbillies, and negros (the word that was routinely used then). He had no international experience. He grew up in a sheltered, rich kid life. He could not stand up to our enemies (USSR). He was on an ego trip as any rich kid would be. His experience was too limited to find, identify, or know of talented subordinates. Just a few Kennedy criticisms in 1959 - many conclusions justified by accurate facts.

So why are we all alive today?

*Bold text = my emphasis*

Well now its my turn - no insult was intended nor implied - I actually wanted your insight and perspective on this issue. I was in a rush to post. Now I'm sorry I posted in haste and got nothing more than another indignant response from you. Such a waste.

Thanks for the "intelligent" compliment - ewven though you didn't really mean it :rolleyes:

I'm not saying I'll agree with your opinion tw - we all know that, but I am trying to get as much info and perspective from as many sources as possible before I cast another vote.

*Note* Please leave my relationship with God out of your future posts. Its not your place. Also, Kennedy was dead before I was born so the only perspective I have on his legacy is that which I've read, seen on tv or heard from older friends and family who were alive at the time.

Pssst - and just between you and me Tom, I voted for Obama on Tuesday in the primary. Perhaps you would have been able to infer that from some of my other posts (see 46 above for example) instead of just making rash assumptions about me. Let go of whatever bias you have please.