Great Jumping Horny Toads! Kennedy Endorses Obama
I'm speechless:speechls:
Ted Kennedy has just endorsed Obama. There are now officially two major camps in the Democratic party. Screw the Kerry-Hillary endorsement, a Kennedy endorsement for a Democratic candidate is
big. This really does indicate that Obama has arrived and has the support of at least some of the Democratic leadership.
If this goes past Super Tuesday and no back room deal is reached, the convention is going to resemble 1969 (sans riots), complete with anti-war protests.
In fact,
both parties might have their primary contests settled at their conventions. If you're a political junkie, this might be a once in a lifetime experience.
If you go to
Intrade, though, the betting still favors Hillary at 61.5 to Obama's 38.5, which indicates both price and percent betting on victory. It's actually more like stock in that you can sell shares at any time. If it was actually legal, I would put down some Obama money because I think that 38.5 is way too low.
You are absolutely right. A Kennedy endorsement is second only to Bill Clinton and on par with one from Al Gore. This is a major coup for Obama.
Rumor has it that Gore is going to announce his support just before Super Tuesday - perhaps Sunday. Definitely a race to watch!
Where's W.H.I.P. when you need him?
I think we can narrow down the field now that several primaries have passed. Let's see... black man, female, old white guy, and mormon. Let me break out my magical 8 ball to see's who's going to win... shake it...
old white guy.
Wait, let me shake it again...
old white guy.
I'll try again...
old white guy.
Hmmm... on the floaty thingy the only choices are old white guy. I guess this thing was made 50 years ago.
Luckily I like McCain.
After a president named Mitt, the only logical following will be one named Biff or Buffy. Is this really the road we want to go down?
I didn't realize until I read an article yesterday bashing Hillary's camp for bashing Obama that his middle name is Hussein.
I know its a common name, but its funny to think we might go from GWB who toppled (Saddam) Hussein to Barack Hussein Obama as Prez.
Coincidence? I think not!
Just don't name any Teddy bears after him.
An endorsement from an old drunk guy that got away with killing his girl friend. Yea, what a coup. Kennedy is a frigging idiot.
He is, as pointed out in the
article no one will read, a
human-alcohol hybrid.I havta say, I went to the Target Center Obama rally yesterday along with 20K+ other Americans to see for myself, and I was very very inspired. He was amazing.
I caught the UCLA rally with Michelle Obama (also amazing) and he picked up Maria Shriver's endorsement now, too!
Why? What he said? How he said it? Ability to work the crowd?
A. the crowd: Young, Old, Male, Female, All Colors, All engaged and concerned.
B. What he said:
1. Promises- yeah, hear them from all but... rooted in the tough reality of the sorts of change he advocates. Accountability, strategy, common cause.
2. His own personal international perspective. Strength and defense through Diplomacy. Engagement. Negotiation. Respect. I did not doubt his ability to be commander and chief, a much better commander and chief on day one.
3. A sense that he understands much first hand and is able and willing to surround himself with intelligent and able people- He struck me as wise.
4. The leverage and value and tremendous potential of turning a new page with the will and brains behind it.
How he said it:
1. Leader. Presidential. Articulate. Smart. Creative. Sincere. Ethical .
2. Its not trickle down change he's talking about. He hammered that home.
Working the crowd:
He bashed Bush/Cheney only once- large response segue into foreign policy.
He evoked Paul Wellstone once - has his old Senate desk supporting his Iraq stance, truth, ethics.
He praised Edwards once- segue into poverty issues
He evoked his daughters' future twice, as his reason for entering race- the critical time is now.
He evoked his mother's death and her struggle with health coverage during her illness seque into universal coverage
He evoked his father leaving and being raised by a young, single mom segue into education, work security, economics, crushing student loans.
A Kennedy endorsement is huge. Elephants walk by a Kennedy endorsement and go "Wow...that's fuckin' huge." Personally, my politics matched John Edwards the most out of the Big 3 Democrats, but I can get behind Barack Obama. He's an electrifying speaker, the only viable candidate who was against the Iraq war from the beginning, and I agree with Warch; he seems to have a certain wisdom, an acknowledgement of the fact that his plans may not be perfect, but they're moving in the right direction. I think that he invokes a youthful, energetic quality that we haven't seen since JFK, and that he's what a frustrated country needs following an era of mistrust and cynicism in politics.
Just don't name any Teddy bears after him.
Roosevelt had bears. Perhaps the Barack Badger is in order?
After a president named Mitt, the only logical following will be one named Biff or Buffy. Is this really the road we want to go down?
He has a son named Tagg. Tagg. T A Double G. This shouldn't matter, but it does. Tagg, for fuck's sake.
A. the crowd: Young, Old, Male, Female, All Colors, All engaged and concerned.
I've been impressed with his ability to speak, but playing devils advocate, if the mixed crowd was all "engaged and concerned", they were probably looking for a savior and heard what they wanted to hear. Jimmy Carter did that for those of us that were disgusted, too. I wonder if Obama can sway the only semi-interested crowd?
I'd say it was a split, like in any rally. Half looking for salvation, half looking for a real candidate.
I hope he can really deliver on his promises, if elected.
Being an old fart that's been disappointed so many times, I can't help but think......
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!
Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
I know. I'm old too. And realistic. But I just don't want to give completely in to cynicism. There's good. And there will be bad too, with any of them. Nothing better will happen if you don't even try to chip away at it, take a new tact.
Along with national security, Healthcare's a huge one to tackle.
I always knew you are smarter than the average bear... and voter.
We all need someone to lean on.... If, there is a load, that you have to bear, ...
I am disappointed with the shallowness of many Americans to take a drunkards endorsement of a candidate and comparison to JFK.
First and foremost, Americans have always romanticized the Kennedy presidency. He is the youngest President, the first to skillfully manipulate the media. Beautiful wife, darling children - women wanted him and men wanted to be him. He had incredible approval ratings - never below 50%, and once as high as 80%. However, during his short presidency we had the failed Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile crisis - the closest we have come to nuclear war. I often wonder if the media had covered his extramarital affairs like they did Clinton if he would have had the same approval ratings and if America would still have the Camelot image. I also don't know if our love affair would have continued had he not been assisinated, and became an old man like the rest of the Presidents.
In truth, Kennedy's depth and experience (or should I say lack of)before Presidency is similar to Obama's. He won because he was able to manipulate the media. He "won" television debates because of his appearance, not his answers. Radio listeners felt Nixon won the debates, not Kennedy, but television viewers saw Nixon as tense and uncomfortable, and deemed Kennedy the winner. He was poetic, speaking of change and service. It was a new message then. Obama has dusted off this campaign trick and is using it wisely. He seems to transcend politics and bring hope to those desparate for a message of hope. But is it real?
His voting record indicates he is not an agent of change. In an effort to avoid any challenges to his votes, he has chosen not to make a decision.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.htm
In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate. In the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted “present,” effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator.... An examination of Illinois records shows at least 36 times when Mr. Obama was either the only state senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way... Among those, Mr. Obama did not vote yes or no on a bill that would allow certain victims of sexual crimes to petition judges to seal court records relating to their cases. He also voted present on a bill to impose stricter standards for evidence a judge is permitted to consider in imposing a criminal sentence. On the sex crime bill, Mr. Obama cast the lone present vote in a 58-to-0 vote.
He has gained momentum in the African American community, but the funny thing is - he does not have the traditional "African American" experience and has not had the trials and tribulations as those that are supporting him. He is not the descendent of slaves - but his mother's side were slave owners. He did not grow up in a prejudiced society - he went to a Catholic elementary school in Indonesia, followed by being raised by white grandprents in a very racially diverse and much more accepting state of Hawaii. He has little in common with the African American voters he is swaying. I heard on the radio a Mexican immigrant (legal) stating he was supporting Obama because Obama was from a family of immigrants like him. Ummm, Obama's father was not an immigrant, he was a foreign student who went back to Kenya, and his mother's family has been in America for centuries. People see what they want to see in Obama; they don't see what he actually is.
Obama's message of hope, while uplifting, is too shallow to survive a Presidency in which he has to make vital decisions, and appoint experienced leaders in key positions. We need someone who can lead us out of Iraq, back into international diplomatic graces, and back into an economic prosperity. He lacks the experience and the ability to make decisions. It takes more than poetry to lead.
Just my thoughts.
So who are you endorsing aimee? Who is the proponent of change? Who is going to make the majority of Americans proud of this country again?
I'm all ears - I have no real draw to any of these candidates.
That's a funny cartoon.
So who are you endorsing aimee? Who is the proponent of change? Who is going to make the majority of Americans proud of this country again?
I'm all ears - I have no real draw to any of these candidates.
Given the choices of Obama (no), Clinton (yes), McCain (yes) and Romney (won't get nomination)...
I'm either voting for Clinton or McCain. Clinton is a Washington insider - which is not a bad thing at this point in time. Under her hubby, we were in good graces with our allies, and had a good economy. Is she another Bill? No. But does she know the right people to appoint to key positions? Yes. That was GWBs fatal error - appointing his fathers Cold War croonies in an era that needed
Globalization experience or at least knowledge, not leaders who thought in terms of "we won the Cold War our way". But I digress. Anyway, Clinton knows who to appoint. She listens to advisors. She doesn't just change her position on the whim of the population, but she does change when she facts and opinion support a different approach. Do I think she'll bring, hmm, I can't think of the right word, but something like pride and 'Camelot' into the White House? No. Would that be nice? Yes. Is it the most important thing now? No. McCain - I don't believe in all of his positions, but he's a straight shooter, follows his heart and gut instinct. He has the experience. There is a bit of fear he'll be another cowboy diplomat... but I think he's learned from GWB. Overall, I think McCain makes sound, solid, reasonable decisions. He makes decisions - period.
I don't dislike Romney... I just don't think he'll get the nomination.
I was listening to CSPAN radio on y horrid morning commute today. Several callers in a row stating they dislike McCain and Clinton, like Obama and Romney. It got to the point I thought CSPAN was only putting on callers who thought that way. However, there was one caller that I had to go "huh?" He was a conservative republican that thinks McCain is "horrible. A liberal." The caller went to his appearance (I want to say Missouri) only in the hope of being able to tell him to his face that he was "a horrible person". So already a bit of a lunatic. But he said he would vote for Obama if McCain got the nomination because McCain is really a liberal. Huh? Another caller really liked Obama, likes his message of unity. When asked if Clinton got the nomination, would he vote for her, all he said was he would support the democratic party because thats what we need to do. Refused to say her name.
Another funny thing was my husband and I were talking - and I can't remember which one of us said it first - but Romney is the candidate that
looks like a President. And we both agreed on it. My new cube mate, Rhiannon, said the exact same thing. I think Romney would have a Presidency appearance of, hmm, not Camelot, but the closest to it in a while. I just honestly don't think he'll get the nomination. I could be wrong. But a lot of people have issues with him being a Mormon.
I honestly believe it will be McCain versus either Clinton or Obama (too close to call right now). And I think McCain will win. If Edwards was the democratic nominee, I think he would win. The primary process unfortunately doesn't choose who would be the best opposition to a viable republican candidate - it just chooses who the democrats like the most. I didn't know a lot about Biden, but he seemed to be a viable candidate as well.
I am not looking for a savior or to resurrect JFK. I want a change for the good but I am either a sceptic or a realist. I don't think someone can change a system like ours just because they say they can. (HOW) change can be accomplished hasn't been answered.
good points aimeecc 'cept McCain scares me. Is he going to be a war monger too? Or revert to the McCain of long ago? He's got bushy all over him.
I think McCain scares a lot of people. People see Bush in him. I can understand why. But there is absolutely no love lost between him and Bush. The two can't stand each other.
My opinion, based on what I see (and we all view things through our own experiences) is that McCain will not be as diplomatic as Clinton or Obama. And that is needed. Desparately needed. But he won't be as bad as Bush. Maybe its that I hope he won't be anywhere near as bad as Bush. I'd like him to support troop withdraw, don't like his statements that we'll be there 100 years if that's what it takes (he really should not have said that), but he does defend his position on staying in Iraq well (in short, we need to ensure the Iraqi gvernment can survive before we withdraw). I don't agree with his reasoning, but the reasoning isn't flawed or wrong. I just disagree with it.
I do not believe he'll be a cowboy diplomat. However, other nations may percieve him to be another Bush, another cowboy diplomat. Which won't help.
I found this on PolitiFact.com
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jan/30/fact-sheet-economic-policy/
I cut out those that were no longer contenders. Romney seems to have the most extensive plan. Both McCain's and Obama's is weak. I like Clinton's, particularly increasing child-care credit. I spent over $8,000 in child care for 8 months (and not at an expensive academy - just the going rate here) - but the max allowable to claim is $3,000, and then depending on your tax bracket, only a percentage of that (for me, 20% of $3,000 = $600).
FACT SHEET: Economic policy
By Angie Drobnic Holan
Published on Wednesday, January 30th, 2008 at 06:43 p.m.
SUMMARY: We check out the latest on President Bush's economic stimulus package and where the candidates stand on economic issues.
As stock markets shudder and government officials fear the nation is headed for recession – or perhaps is already in one – the political candidates have touted their plans both for short-term stimulus and long-term economic well-being.
President George W. Bush recently agreed with the U.S. House in principle on a $146-billion economic stimulus package. It would include tax rebates of $600 for individuals, $1,200 for couples, and $300 per child. There would be faster tax writeoffs for corporate investment as well as tax deductions for small business investment. The House passed the plan on Jan. 29, 2008, but the Senate has taken up its own version. Congressional leaders hope to meet a Feb. 15, 2008, deadline to get the package signed.
Here are some of the indicators that have officials concerned the U.S. economy is off track:
Homes sales down:
Existing U.S. home sales dropped to 4,890,000 in December 2007 from 6,270,000 in December 2006, down 22 percent.
Home prices down:
Median home sales price dropped to $208,400 in December 2007 from $221,600 in December 2006, down 6 percent.
Inflation growing:
Consumer Price Index (a measure of inflation) grew 4.1 percent for the year ending December 2007 versus 2.5 percent for the year ending December 2006.
Dollar falling:
A U.S. dollar buys 0.68 euro on Jan. 25, 2008, vs. 0.76 euro on Jan. 25, 2007.
Federal budget deficit growing:
Actual budget deficit for 2007 is $163-billion; projected budget deficit for 2008 is $219-billion, up 34 percent.
Public outlook gloomy:
Sixty-one percent of respondents believe the United States is in recession, according to a nationwide CNN poll conducted Jan. 9-10, 2008.
WHERE THE CANDIDATES STAND
REPUBLICANS
Mitt Romney: Romney has said he supports the Bush package and would like to see it go further. Romney has one of the most detailed plans for economic stimulus. For individuals, he wants to permanently lower the tax rate for the lowest income tax bracket, from 10 percent to 7.5 percent. (In general, this would reduce taxes on about the first $7,825 of earnings for everyone.) He wants to eliminate payroll taxes for working seniors over the age of 65 and make savings for the middle class tax-free. As a way to promote savings, any taxpayer with adjusted gross income under $200,000 would pay no taxes on income earned from savings, capital gains and dividends.
For businesses, Romney wants to institute immediate 100 percent expensing of new equipment purchased by a business for a two-year period retroactive to Jan. 1, 2008. He wants to permanently reduce corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 20 percent over a two-year period. Romney also seeks to reform and expand Federal Housing Administration loan portfolio limits to allow larger loans to homeowners.
Among his longstanding economic positions, he wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, cut tax rates across the board, eliminate the estate tax, make permanent the research and development tax credit for corporations. He also opposes any increases in Social Security taxes and would like to curtail the growth of the Alternative Minimum Tax.
John McCain: McCain has said he intends to vote for the Bush economic stimulus package. His longstanding positions on the economy include eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax and making the Bush tax cuts permanent. He wants to maintain current rates on dividends and capital gains. For businesses, McCain wants to permanently reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent; to allow first-year expensing of equipment and technology investments; and to make permanent the research and development tax credit for corporations.
Among other issues, he seeks to lower Medicare premiums and ban Internet and cell phone taxes. He emphasizes reducing spending by curtailing earmarks, subsidies and “pork-barrel” spending.
DEMOCRATS
Hillary Clinton: Clinton said she is "heartened" that Bush intends to negotiate a stimulus package with Congress, but has not yet committed to voting for it. As a short-term stimulus, Clinton supports home heating and mortgage subsidies, as well as a $40-billion tax rebate. She has said that if the government approves tax rebates, it should also provide relief for Americans who don’t pay income taxes, such as seniors and the working poor. She proposes an expansion of unemployment benefits.
For individuals, Clinton seeks to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and roll back the cuts for those with incomes over $250,000. She also wants to offer up to $1,000 in matching tax cuts to help families save for retirement. She wants to expand the earned income tax credit, increase tax credits for child care, and provide a new $3,500 tax credit for middle-class college expenses. She plans to offer tax credits for energy efficiency and alternative energy measures.
She also wants to create a fund to prevent foreclosure for at-risk homeowners. She wants a 90-day freeze on foreclosures for subprime mortgages and a five-year freeze on interest rates for subprime mortgages.
Barack Obama: Obama has criticized the Bush stimulus package for not extending benefits for the unemployed and for not giving aid to workers with low incomes who don't pay taxes. He has not committed to voting for or against the stimulus package. Obama’s own short-term plan calls for an immediate $75-billion tax rebate, which would be a $250 tax cut for workers and a $250 bonus to seniors in their Social Security checks. He allows for the possibility of repeating these cuts if the economy does not respond. He also wants to create a fund to prevent foreclosure for at-risk homeowners. He wants to extend and expand unemployment insurance.
As part of his overall economic package, Obama supports a $500 tax credit that would reimburse workers for payroll taxes. He also supports expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and a mortgage interest deduction for nonitemizing taxpayers. He wants to eliminate taxes on seniors making less than $50,000. He supports tax credits for college tuition and child care targeted to low- and middle-income families. He seeks to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
For business, he wants to make permanent the research and development tax credit for corporations. He wants to eliminate capital gains taxes for start-up businesses.
So who are you endorsing aimee? Who is the proponent of change? Who is going to make the majority of Americans proud of this country again?
I'm all ears - I have no real draw to any of these candidates.
Candidate of change? Seriously? Classic you are smarter than that. None of the candidates are really proponents for change. Not in the way you mean it, anyway. The only real change any of them are interested in is seeing their address change. Real proponents of change wouldn't survive in politics long enough for you to even learn their names. Every person in the race has been around long enough and compromised enough that the only hope for change you'll find is in their rhetoric. Once the winner moves into the White House they will begin their reelection campaign so they won't want to make too many enemies.
If you need a president to make you proud of the country then the country isn't worth being proud of anyway. Our nation is a great nation because of the people you meet everyday - not the douchebags on tv. The people that wake up every day, go to work, and try to improve life for their families. The people that have to make hard decisions everyday (are getting new tires more important than replacing the refrigerator this month?) are far more important than the people who talk year in and year out about medical care. The family that weighs the risk and decides it is better to start their own small business than spend another day working for someone else, contribute more to our economy than all the suits talking about tax code combined. The woman who is worried about paying for the kids' school supplies but still manages to give a couple bucks to the guy on the corner is doing more for the poor than all the jokers debating the size and scope of tax rebates.
Be proud of the country based on the real people in it, not the assholes that get elected.
If you need a president to make you proud of the country then the country isn't worth being proud of anyway.
Hmmm. Its a bit more complicated isn't it? If you are truly a swell people in a representational republic, worthy of a sense of pride, yet misrepresented at best, incompetently and dangerously around the globe for years, you have a duty to change it. That's where the pride of country comes in... a peoples' civic ability to peacefully alter their government to best represent their values and interests.
Its messy but its worth working on. See, on levels big and small, that's why most people get up in the morning and go to work. They somehow manage to balance the cynicism with a little hope.
As to amieecc good comments- I'm convinced of depth and ability beyond Obama's pretty face and rhetoric. But a lot of my friends are desperate for their best shot at universal healthcare and are solid for Clinton. I can understand that.
There's nothing wrong with wanting a President you'd be proud to have. A lot of people do a lot for America - but guess who's face we see and the rest of the world see's every day? Its none of the every day heroes. Its the President, and Britney Spears.
I'm proud of me and my husband. I'm proud of my brothers and sisters. I'm proud of my son. I'm proud of the people who volunteer their time to help others. I'm proud of those that serve our nation - whether its the Marine Corps or Peace Corps or diplomatic corps. But I, like a lot of Americans, want a leader I can be proud of, a leader who will lead our nation through this tough time, put us on the right footing with other nations, and make our economy strong again. He (or she) doesn't need to be handsome and debonair, doesn't need a chest full of medals, and doesn't need a sqqueky clean family picture to make me proud. Just needs leadership ability.
Just needs leadership ability.
I'd add that they need to lead in the right direction. I don't want to follow a strong leader off a cliff.
Good discussion. Hillary is not the answer. Obama, maybe, McCain, maybe. I don't know. If Hitlery gets the nod from the Dems I will vote for Donald Duck if he is the Repub canidate.
But Wesley Snipes like Hillary's tax cut proposal.
I'm honestly happy that at this point, no matter who goes to the general election of the few candidates left, it won't be as bad as the choices 4 years ago. It really was 'who's the lesser of two evils' question for me. I don't think I'd be unhappy with any of them this go round.
So what's wrong with Clinton?
Candidate of change? Seriously? Classic you are smarter than that. None of the candidates are really proponents for change. Not in the way you mean it, anyway. The only real change any of them are interested in is seeing their address change. Real proponents of change wouldn't survive in politics long enough for you to even learn their names.
Be proud of the country based on the real people in it, not the assholes that get elected.
Personally, I am proud to be an American, but I hear so much from so many that it troubles me a great deal. Thats why I said what I said.
Aside from than that, I agree with you.
So what's wrong with Clinton?
There isn't enough paper on the planet to answer that.
How about the top 5... 3... 1?
#1 seems to be that she's a Clinton.
So what's wrong with Clinton?
Everything.:cool:
I don't know how you'd stand listening to her voice for the next 4-8 yrs to be honest.
She sounds like a fishwife.
Here are the basic frames I see:
Shrill, Femi-nazi, Tough, Manipulative, Slippery (slimed by Bill), Ruthless, Driven, Demanding, Angry, Built-in network to the Democratic partisan machine.
Old, Unstable, Hot Tempered, Loudmouth, Two-faced, Power hungry, Manipulative, Lacking Governing Skill, Bush-light, Riding his War record.
Naive, Black Male= (unstable, angry, threatening, untrustworthy, unelectable), Manipulative, Insincere, Idealistic, Unprepared, Muslim, Terrorist.
Mormon freak, Corporate slime, Vain Power-hungry pretty boy, heir to the Bush policy and political machine legacy.
Preacher, Theocratic, Clueless hick, unprepared, Bushian feel for constitution, Tax and spend, naive, idealistic.
A republican friend passed this on to me:
How about the top 5... 3... 1?
1) She's a Clinton or a Bush.
2) She's "Hillary" Clinton.
3) Here Husband is Bill Clinton.
4) List of Clinton Scandals.
5) Stance on Taxes.
6) Stance in Iraq.
7) Look at her.
8) Listen to her.
9) Lack of action with Wal-Mart situation.
10) Political beliefs are contrary to mine.
I only see 4,5,6,9 & 10 as valid, but that's certainly enough to make an opinion.
Oh, and congrats to Warch, you done did it.
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.
In an interview reported by the New York Times on July 26, [2004] on the first day of the convention, he reiterated his opposition to the war but declined to criticize Kerry and Edwards, saying he was "not privy to Senate intelligence reports." He then continued: "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/obama_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.
In October 2002, before being elected to the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama made a speech opposing the Bush Administration's plan to go to war in Iraq because he felt it was an ill-conceived venture which would "require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undermined cost, with undetermined consequences."
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.
Its a nasty part of life, but democracies don't work in polarized nations.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
To portray himself as a common man is wrong as well. He was just as privileged and sheltered as Clinton
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah really - after she's done we can have President Jeb :lol:
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.
Oh please do tell. I need to know this before the election.
C'mon -gimme, gimme, gimme.
Oh please do tell. I need to know this before the election.
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?
Bias and ignorance by one who knows only using a conservative agenda is demonstated again. (unfortunately by tw)
As usual, classicman knows because he was there in 1959. Oh. He need not be there. Extremist conservative bias is enough to know.
An intelligent classicman would have been interested in learning those comparison. Classicman's post is a blunt obvious insult. {FALSE}
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.
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?
tw, you should really have read my previous posting on this thread.
First and foremost, Americans have always romanticized the Kennedy presidency. He is the youngest President, the first to skillfully manipulate the media. Beautiful wife, darling children - women wanted him and men wanted to be him. He had incredible approval ratings - never below 50%, and once as high as 80%. However, during his short presidency we had the failed Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile crisis - the closest we have come to nuclear war. I often wonder if the media had covered his extramarital affairs like they did Clinton if he would have had the same approval ratings and if America would still have the Camelot image. I also don't know if our love affair would have continued had he not been assisinated, and became an old man with serious baggage like the rest of the Presidents. He would have been the one to blame for the Vietnam War.
In truth, Kennedy's depth and experience (or should I say lack of) before Presidency is similar to Obama's. He won because he was able to manipulate the media. He "won" television debates because of his appearance, not his answers. Radio listeners felt Nixon won the debates, not Kennedy, but television viewers saw Nixon as tense and uncomfortable, and deemed Kennedy the winner. He was poetic, speaking of change and service. It was a new message then. Obama has dusted off this campaign trick and is using it wisely. He seems to transcend politics and bring hope to those desparate for a message of hope. But is it real?
So, tw, yes, I know what your saying. And just because he's been endorsed by a couple (not all) Kennedy's (Former Maryland Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, issued a statement in support of Clinton) and because he dusted off JFKs poetry does not mean he will be as great as JFK was during his short Presidency.
And, no, were not alive today because of JFKs leadership. That's stretching his impact.
Oh please do tell. I need to know this before the election.
C'mon -gimme, gimme, gimme.
There was a fear that a Catholic would be more loyal to the Vatican than to the US.
And, no, were not alive today because of JFKs leadership. That's stretching his impact.
Yes, we are saying the same things with slightly different perspectives. However we are all alive because of what Kennedy did. It is a critical lesson from history.
It was called a 'button' because we launched no nuclear weapons or launched all against every 'enemy' nations. Had Kennedy not put a stop to 'big dic' thinking during the Cuban missile crisis, then we now know he would have had no choice but to push that button. The 1st Marine Division would have been nuked on Cuban beaches by tactical nuclear weapons we did not know existed. We came that close to ending the world as we know it only because 'big dic' thinking was doing anything possible to create what we now know would have been unrestricted 'world wide' nuclear war.
The Cuban Missile Crisis is the perfect example of why 'big dic' thinking - a one-dimensional solution that loves 'big gun' prescriptions - is often a loser's agenda. IOW America needs people with intelligence - not people who know only using one-dimensional political agendas.
We learned 30 years later how close the world changed as we know it. I was not stretching anything. It was Kennedy's leadership that kept us from making that 'world wide nuclear war' mistake.
We came that close to changing our world during those 13 days in October because a strong majority advocated 'big dic' solutions. Another lesson as to why intelligent leaders *always* talk to their enemies - this sentence directed at 'big dic' thinkers here who believe otherwise.
Intelligent leaders see things in perspectives - ignore 'good and evil' thinking. Intelligent leaders work with reality - not myths created by political agendas. Intelligent leaders ask damning questions to avoid traps advocated by 'big dic' thinking. Because Cuba was not invaded, we are all alive today. Scary were the number of Americans (including so many in the Kennedy brain trust) that advocated that 'big dic' trap.
There was a fear that a Catholic would be more loyal to the Vatican than to the US.
Today, many religious extremists advocate imposing their religion on all others. Santorum was removed from the Senate because he imposed his religion on Terry Schiavo. Anyone voting for a political leader based upon his religious believes must also want the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, and 30 Years War all over again.
How ironic that people feared Kennedy because he was a Catholic. But now have no problem with religious leaders (ie the Pope) ordering politicians to impose their religious doctrine in American laws. Yes, the Pope has ordered just that. He has ordered American politicians to impose Church doctrine on American laws. Evangelical Christian extremists are doing same.
Anyone voting for a political leader based upon his religious believes must also want the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, and 30 Years War all over again.
whew! good thing you stopped there, i was afraid you might stoop to hyperbole!
There was a fear that a Catholic would be more loyal to the Vatican than to the US.
America vetoed the Morman, maybe we can get a Jew on the ticket.
My wife took our kids out of school and went to the Clinton rally yesterday in Arlington. She has liked Clinton for years. I actually went into a N.O.W. office back in '92 and bought her a "Hillary for President in '96" pin for her birthday because she was such a fan.
She and the kids had to wait in line for a while and get there early to be able to get in. I'm glad the kids went. They learned more at that rally than they would have in school yesterday.
She's trying to convince me to vote for Clinton, but I'm trying to convince her to vote for Obama.
Here's Sen. Clinton being introduced by Arlington Country Sheriff Beth Arthur. See, Clinton is strong with law enforcement.
here's a great obama video i found......somewhere
[youtube]XA2Z9fVRohk[/youtube]
do you like turtles?
Notice in the picture above all the young people behind Clinton? They were High School students who were seated behind the stage so they would be in all the pictures. The organizers also invited people to come down to the gym floor and stand in front of the stage "especially young people." They are really trying to appeal to the young folks, but the general population who showed up for the rally were mostly middle aged and older. While waiting around, one guy was talking with Mrs. glatt about when he was a Dukakis supporter and went to one of those ralleys.
My junior high school took us on an official field trip to a campaign rally for Ann Richards, the incumbent Democratic governor at the time (who ended up losing to George W. Bush.) A whole lot of parents were pissed as all hell when they found out that we were basically taken out of class without notice or permission to be used for a photo op for a politician they didn't necessarily support. Can't say any of the students cared one way or the other, except it was nice to be let out of class to go outside. :)
She's trying to convince me to vote for Clinton, but I'm trying to convince her to vote for Obama.
Sounds like my house, except I'm smarter than you. I don't need to pick that battle.
Sounds like my house, except I'm smarter than you. I don't need to pick that battle.
That's what makes debating fun! Except I wouldn't dare try to convince you to change sides. Oh hell no! :rolleyes:
My husband and I agree - were both for Clinton.
I found an interesting article on the battle between Clinton and Obama:
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10656864
The entire article is good, but I found the below excerpt very perceptive:
The deadlock is deeper than geography or demography: it is about different forms of leadership. Mr Obama is the most inspiring American politician for a generation. Mrs Clinton is an inspiration-free zone—her speech on Tuesday was particularly excruciating—who nevertheless exudes an air of serious-minded competence. Mr Obama's supporters want a president who can inspire Americans to be their better selves. Mrs Clinton's supporters want a leader who can negotiate health-care reforms and mortgage bail-outs. The Obamaites regard Mrs Clinton as a divisive bore. The Clintonites dismiss Mr Obama as a talented wind-bag.
I know a lot of people view Clinton as polarizing. Both her and McCain are abrasive and irritating. I think there's some people, like my husband and I, who this personality trait doesn't bother, wheras others can't stand these traits and will automatically shut out people like that. And my husband and I are cynical when it comes to inspirational poetry. I understand why people like Obama and dislike Hillary, I just don't agree.
My husband and I agree - were both for Clinton.
I understand why people like Obama and dislike Hillary, I just don't agree.
Why don't you agree? Are your politics morwe in-line with hers? Does she excite you in some fashion? What is it about her that you like?
Why don't you agree? Are your politics morwe in-line with hers? Does she excite you in some fashion? What is it about her that you like?
I think she has the committment to see something through that requires dedication, and the courage to back down and change positions when all key indicators are for another approach. Some say this is flip-flopping ala Kerry, but its not flip-flopping when it is infrequently done and only after analysis as shown a different approach is warrented. I know people look at the cronies she would appoint and claim same old washington politics. Truth is anyone brings in their favorites. She has a larger pool of advisors to pull from, advisors that are tested, experienced, and know their way around Washington politics. Everyone can say they don't want an insider, but an insider knows how to accomplish things whereas an outsider spends the first years trying to find out who really pulls the strings. She is smart and cunning. I say that in a positive way. I don't want a naive can't we all just get along President who is blind to others motivations. If you look at her positions, she is not as far left as Obama - and I am not far left, so I tend to agree with her positions more. She has more thorough plans than Obama; very solid well defined plans. And she makes decisions. Its all nice and well for Obama to claim he was against the war, but if he had been in the Senate, who knows how he would have voted. If you look at his voting record, he uses the vote of "present" to avoid being criticized. I don't want a President that won't make a decision for fear it would alienate someone.
I like her serious attitude. I like her take no prisoners approach.
It has also annoyed me how the media is hyping up Obama. A few weeks ago, when Obama was behind, instead of headlines like "Clinton wins x state", it was "Obama narrowly loses x state". That was done purposely to continue to paint him as a pontential victor. Yet when Clinton loses a state, its "Obama triumphs!", not "Clinton narrowly loses". When Clinton wins, its because the "middle age female voters came out en masse." Its not "Obama won because black voters came out en masse" when he wins. They've painted Clinton as only getting middle aged women votes, which isn't true.
I'm highly educated - so according to the pollsters I should be for Obama. I'm in my early 30s, so not middle aged - yet - so I should be for Obama. My husband is in his 40s, and a white male, and highly educated, so he should be for Obama. No, he's for Clinton too. Why? She knows how to get things done. And there were no pollsters where we voted.
I voted yesterday. My state went to Obama. I guess I'll vote McCain in the general election because I don't think Clinton's going to get the nomination. Obama's too far left for me, and I don't think he could handle another 9/11.
Black voters probably don't make up as large a portion of the electorate as middle-aged white women. However, the press has been astounded by the way that Obama has carried the black vote by 90% in most states since South Carolina.
Recently there seemed to be a demographic divide between the Clinton and Obama supporters: Obama has carried young voters (where by "young", I mean under 45), black voters, and the well educated / well off. Clinton has carried older voters (ie > 65), white women, hispanics, and unions.
In yesterday's Virginia primary, however, Obama won every demograpic group except white women, and I think that Clinton's only strong bastion of support was among white women older than 45.
The Media is pushing Obama hard and most people are sheep - they will just follow along and "do as they're told." Either way, it looks like he's got it wrapped up unless she can pull some of Jimx's magic rabbits out of her a**.
I'm confused by the polls stating its this or that demographic voting this or that way. There were no pollsters where I voted. So what, they stand at one station and get the snapshot of American voters from there? Or do they just pull this stuff from their behind and convince us its true?
Just think. We get to do this again in 4 more years. I bet Jeb Bush will run then.
well, if he doesn't you don't have to worry long. Neal Bush and Chelsea will be ready soon.
I'm confused by the polls stating its this or that demographic voting this or that way. There were no pollsters where I voted. So what, they stand at one station and get the snapshot of American voters from there? Or do they just pull this stuff from their behind and convince us its true?
I was polled coming out of a rural voting station once. I think it was back when I voted for Ron Paul as the Libertarian's candidate for Pres. I'd suggest that they can do a decent job on polling if that's their goal. NPR did a piece this evening on a Clinton supporter, who is being sued by stockholders, who paid Bill three million bucks and happens to do CNN's polling... The media may really be jumping ship.
well, if he doesn't you don't have to worry long. Neal Bush and Chelsea will be ready soon.
Chelsea, maybe. Neil Bush... oh hell no. He's got way too much dirty laundry, of the provable kind. It's hard to start a political career when you've admitted on public record that you had numerous encounters with overseas prostitutes, which led to your very messy divorce, shortly after which you marry a close family friend, and your ex-wife alleges that your new wife's youngest child was actually sired by you rather than her ex-husband... And that doesn't even count the drug allegations. :)
Here's the frustrating thing about McCain: McCain, even without catering to conservtive views, could be a foil to Obamamania that Clinton can never be; however, the conservatives apparently don't care for 'Straight Talk' either. While they are spoiled brats, McCain is too nice. I think McCain should do one of his own Sister Soulja moments to Ann Coulter.
Here's the frustrating thing about McCain: McCain, even without catering to conservtive views, could be a foil to Obamamania that Clinton can never be; however, the conservatives apparently don't care for 'Straight Talk' either. While they are spoiled brats, McCain is too nice. I think McCain should do one of his own Sister Soulja moments to Ann Coulter.
WTF does any of that mean??:rolleyes:
Chelsea, maybe. Neil Bush... oh hell no. He's got way too much dirty laundry, of the provable kind. It's hard to start a political career when you've admitted on public record that you had numerous encounters with overseas prostitutes, which led to your very messy divorce, shortly after which you marry a close family friend, and your ex-wife alleges that your new wife's youngest child was actually sired by you rather than her ex-husband... And that doesn't even count the drug allegations. :)
Once upon a time it was unheard of to have a presidential run if you'd smoked a joint. or had previous affairs made public. or snorted a line. or had a DUI. Times change - and don't forget his last name is Bush. Will all of that really seem
that bad when held up against previous Bush accomplishments?;)
Bank fraud? Someone has to draw the line there.
Not as long as the only one getting burned is the FDIC (us)
Don't forget, bureaucrats vote too.
Presumably in their own self interest.
Dn't we all Bruce, don't we all?