Super Tuesday 2008
SANTA MONICA, Cali. — For the first time since I’ve started voting in Presidential Elections (which is since 1996), I’m going to walk into the booth tomorrow without knowing who (or if) I’m going to endorse, thanks to John Edwards, regrettably, being out-hyped, out-spent and overlooked. (Yes, I’m bitter about it.) In California you are required to declare your party affiliation in order to vote in the primary for that party. As a result I have three choices — Clinton, Obama, or neither. I really wish I could vote in the GOP primary so I would have the range of all the candidates to consider. Let’s say I did have that range, how should I vote? For people who are decided or undecided, which candidates are you pulling for tomorrow?
Popularity: 7% [?]
no more tag found, sorry
Posted from: 66.108.84.96
February 4th, 2008 10:11
I will be voting for Senator Hillary Clinton tomorrow.
She is passionate about the issues about which I am passionate and she has a resume extending far back before both her tenure in the Senate and her time as First Lady advocating for said issues.
I look forward to hearing John Roberts be the first person in American history to say, “Congratulations, Madame President” on Inauguration Day.
Posted from: 136.242.129.93
February 4th, 2008 10:26
I’m not only voting for Mitt Romney, I’m dedicating a lot of effort toward getting him elected. He’s a man with the experience, vision, and values to change Washington, just like he changes Domino’s, Staples, the Olympics, and Mass. Americans are crying out for a change in the political culture of Washington, and quite frankly Romney is the only candidate with the ability to bring about any meaningful reform (sorry Barack, the state senate and maybe being some kind of “organizer” for a couple of years doesn’t make the cut).
Posted from: 138.16.32.79
February 4th, 2008 11:43
I submitted an absentee ballot for Barack last week, and the most recent debate made me all the more confident in my decision. He showed that he is as much a policy heavyweight as Hillary is, plus, as is often noted, he offers a lot of the intangibles that she doesn’t. Maybe I’m just drinking the kool-aid, but I have noticed much less cynicism in myself since Iowa, when a 93% white electorate went out and voted for a guy whose name is like 2 steps from Osama bin Laden. And I do believe he will surround himself with people who have “experience” (though I’m often unsure what exactly that is supposed to mean as it’s been thrown around so much during the campaign).
More importantly, the most recent debate also made me proud to be a Democrat. Barack and Hillary had a serious policy discussion, and drew contrasts between themselves without sinking to the level of the McCain-Romney exchanges we’ve seen in the recent Republican debates. In short, I’m just so sick of grumpy, old, delusional, anti-intellectual white dudes, and I’ll gladly cast a ballot for Barack or Hillary in November.
Posted from: 138.16.32.79
February 4th, 2008 11:46
though, ryan, the notion of having the country run more like an office supply store is tempting
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
February 4th, 2008 11:56
it would be sweet if the country ran like a pizza delivery store, too. If i could order my drivers license online and it would show up 30 minutes later would be great!
also – jon, how do you respond to someone like ann coulter who says hillary is more conservative than McCain?
Posted from: 66.108.84.96
February 4th, 2008 12:47
My first response is to laugh. Coulter has a history of making outrageous, incendiary comments to inflame those who oppose her. I would take anything she says — particularly about Democrats — with a grain of salt. I don’t think she’s an actual conservative. I think she’s a talking head opportunist, and she has an ax to grind with McCain.
My second response is to shake my head in disbelief. Hillary Clinton is a tried-and-true liberal Democrat. She’s been there when it counted and has fought for issues that I care about for a long, long time. A small sampling:
She was advocating for the poor when Jimmy Carter appointed her to the Legal Services Corporation in 1978; she served as chair of the committee. The LSC is a direct product of the Great Society under LBJ and provides legal assistance to the poor who cannot afford it.
She has been a vocal and active supporter of gay issues, both in my own state and nationally.
She, obviously, has been one of the leading forces in American politics for a national health care system before it was a fashionable issue.
She has an “F” rating from the National Rifle Association and a “D-” from the so-called Americans for Better Immigration. Sounds great to me on both counts. :o)
Posted from: 76.87.168.59
February 4th, 2008 12:50
I doubt that anyone who could use this information will see it, but just in case – If you are registered voter in Cali, but have not declared your party affiliation you can still vote tomorrow. You just can’t vote Republican, Libertarian, Green, or Peace and Freedom. You can request a Democrat or American Independent ballot. Our modified closed primary system allows parties to make the decision to let unaffiliated voters take part or not through writing to the secretary of state. It is typical of democrats to take advantage of such state guidelines. The Republicans do not. Anyway, point is if you lean Dem, but don’t want to be registered as such you can still play. And Mike – did you really just invoke Ann Coulter? I vomited in my mouth a little bit.
Posted from: 66.176.42.254
February 4th, 2008 13:14
Hillary ’08
In the debate world where theoretical scenarios are everything, I understand a vote for Obama. We should always judge candidates by their respective records. What has Obama done? Compare how much change he is personally responsible for to how much change Hillary has caused through her years of experience.
Affirm or Negate:
The President of the United States has a moral obligation to meet with any world leader who choses to meet with him/her within his/her first year in office.
Posted from: 209.181.228.22
February 4th, 2008 13:51
Since the beginning, I’ve been a huge supporter of Obama. Especially with the JFK ad he has out, it just seems right. He doesn’t have the experience, granted, but as we’ve seen in the past eight years, experience doesn’t necessarily equal success.
Considering the fact that whoever gets elected needs to change things fast, there’s only one choice in my mind. Obama is the only candidate who can honestly say that he represents change. No conservative can, and by being a Clinton Hilary can’t either. Hilary is the de facto incumbent of the Democratic party.
Posted from: 128.12.16.14
February 4th, 2008 14:08
I’ll be voting for Obama for pretty much the same reasons Matt articulated (though I’d put an especially heavy emphasis on the differences in foreign policy between Clinton and Obama – just looking at their FP advisers alone is convincing on this point). I will say that I would be overjoyed if Mitt Romney was the Republican nominee.
Posted from: 70.116.31.157
February 4th, 2008 14:24
Barack Obama.
Hillary is an extremely divisive figure with a long history of questionable personal ethics. A lot of people are skeptical of John McCain’s ability to unite the Republican party, but nobody doubts that Hillary is capable of that task…in fact if there is one thing that the Republican half of this country all share it is a vitriolic hatred of Hillary. Beyond that, her inability to explain the gap between herrhetoric on the campaign stump and her extremely hawkish record is a huge liability. Don’t any of these Hillary supporters remember what happened last time we nominated someone who voted for the war before they voted against it?
If she is able to overcome all this, and beat McCain (a person I have infinite respect for) the best the country can hope for is another four years of a 50+1 majority that will accomplish nothing.Certainly, not a single republican will ever support Hillarycare V 2.0 , that sould be self-evident.
Barack Obama has the personal story, political skill, intellect, and integrity necessary to reinvigorate an apathetic nation and re-brand liberal politics the way Reagan re-branded conservative politics in 1980. No one every says I’m a Bill Clinton democrat, in the same way people are proud to be Reagan conservatives. In fact, liberals have been living in shame ever since the 1960s, afraid to even use the word liberal. I think 30 years from now people will be proud to say they are Obama democrats. There’s a chance I’m wrong, and Obama is just a fluke, but we might as well take the risk, given the other option.
And a note on experience: Working at the Rose Law Firm is not experience. Presiding over 8 consecutive easter egg rolls and picking the linens for state dinners is not experience. Leading the most catastrophic failure of the Clinton administration is experience, of a sort. Voting for the war, and against the Levin amendment and for the recent Kyl-Lieberman amendment is experience of a sort. It is as if Clinton looked at her record, realized it was a complete failure, and decided to run on the hoax that she has experience. Barack Obama has more years in public office than she does, and lets face it if this election comes down to years spent in Washington, Clinton’s only apparent qualification, John McCain is going to win hands down.
Posted from: 169.204.230.202
February 4th, 2008 14:36
i wholeheartedly agree with everything ryan cooper says, so i guess that means i vote my gender over my race.
Posted from: 66.176.42.254
February 4th, 2008 14:37
I think Hillary can unite the party. All of these questions raised about her electability and her ability to overcome scandals were raised before and while she ran for senate in 2000 and were dropped by the time of her re-election campaign.
If you can count in Obama’s experience as a community organizer, it is only fair to count Clinton’s experience working for the Children’s Defense Fund. Hillary has a much larger list of career successes than Obama. Compare the amount of change each candidate has caused and then determine the real candidate for change.
Obama’s backing is relatively shallow. Most of it comes from people who believe that they are part of a revolution. John McCain will easily be able to remove the halo from Obama’s head. Remember, Obama has not had the same level of media scrutiny that Hillary has endured for all these years. We only found out about Rezko over a week ago. How much is left in Obama’s closet. Republicans will find it. It is remarkable how much Hillary has been able to withstand on her own.
Republicans can easily argue that Obama gave his implicit support of the war during the actual invasion. His criticism renewed after the insurgency took root.
Posted from: 69.249.94.118
February 4th, 2008 14:47
RON PAUL
RON PAUL
RON PAUL
Posted from: 165.254.143.3
February 4th, 2008 15:02
I care less about experience in elected public office and more about dedication to public service.
Ryan, I admire your passion for Obama, but I think it’s a gross mischaracterization of Senator Clinton’s record to call it a “complete failure.” I also think it’s interesting that so many supporters of Obama — who stands for “hope” and “change” and a fundamental change in political discourse – insist in engaging in such considerable vitriol. That seems like old-school politics to me.
I’m not quite sure how law firm experience is any less legitimate than community organizer experience or Obama’s own legal experience, which has been routinely touted as well. But, of course, that sidesteps very significant public service experience that I mentioned above (LSC – an organization that really *makes* change), very significant public service experience that I forgot to mention (Children’s Defense Fund — thank you, Joshua!), and very significant legislative experience and success.
Hillary Clinton broke the mold for First Ladies, both in Arkansas and in the White House. She was intimately involved in policy decisions in both places; we need only remember GOP criticisms of this throughout both Bill Clinton’s gubernatorial and presidential administrations. Characterizing her involvement as “egg rolls” and “linens” and, apparently, nothing more, makes me really uncomfortable.
I like a lot of what Obama is saying. I like how he says it, and he’s got a lot of talent. But I wouldn’t put my star novice declamation competitor as the captain of my team. I’d rather put someone experienced, hardened, who has had some failures and learned from them, and who has demonstrated a record of standing up for the principles I support, in charge.
Posted from: 165.254.143.3
February 4th, 2008 15:04
(All that having been said, your point about the rhetorical issues surrounding the word “liberal” is very well taken. They both seem insistent on using the word “progressive” to sidestep this issue, though.)
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
February 4th, 2008 15:34
I will be honest. I have voted in 3 previous Presidential elections. I voted: Clinton, Nader, Nader.
I don’t like Democrats, generally. I consider myself to be a very, very liberal individual, both fiscally and socially, but Democrats just annoy the crap out of me. Lexy Green had me read an article by Andrew Sullivan that sums up what I feel about Dems:
“Clinton grew up saturated in the conflict that still defines American politics. As a liberal, she has spent years in a defensive crouch against triumphant post-Reagan conservatism. The mau-mauing that greeted her health-care plan and the endless nightmares of her husband’s scandals drove her deeper into her political bunker. Her liberalism is warped by what you might call a Political Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Reagan spooked people on the left, especially those, like Clinton, who were interested primarily in winning power. She has internalized what most Democrats of her generation have internalized: They suspect that the majority is not with them, and so some quotient of discretion, fear, or plain deception is required if they are to advance their objectives. And so the less-adept ones seem deceptive, and the more-practiced ones, like Clinton, exhibit the plastic-ness and inauthenticity that still plague her candidacy. She’s hiding her true feelings. We know it, she knows we know it, and there is no way out of it.”
For the most part I think that Dems, nationally, have been spineless and uninspired, rolling over to take another from the stronger, more confident, prepared, and more organized GOP. Why is anyone surprised that people vote against their own interest all the time in favor of the principle’s espoused by the right? I’m shocked there are any Democrats in congress. Although, it seems Dems win out of protest more than out of possibility.
I really can’t stand Hillary Clinton. She seems fraudulent to me. I think we saw her sincerity only once in this campaign. This was her “You helped me find my voice” speech after New Hampshire. I also feel like she is a candidate who feels as though it is her “turn.” Her experience in policy-making is a plus.
Barack seems to be more sincere, but I worry that he is not well-vetted. Any last minute revelation by the Republicans can spell a disaster for the Democrats.
In McCain I see someone who, primarily, is a militarist. I think domestically he doesn’t really stand for anything. Maybe lower taxes, maybe not. I think this is why conservatives don’t really trust him. I also have a tough time trusting him. But I also think he embrasses the *maverick* label enough that he might actually take time to do some things that are truly bi-partisan. I also don’t worry too much about the courts with him in office. But his willingness to play fast-and-loose with the truth bothers me. In the most recent GOP debates he made three points about Romney. Romney answered all three as untruths and McCain just sat there looking like a goose.
Romney is intriguing only because I think he is a known commodity. He will fight for lower taxes for the upper-class. He will fight for lower taxes for large corporations. He will nominate anti-union judges. I think he will expand US military operations. He seems to be more principled than McCain or Clinton.
Posted from: 24.6.64.186
February 4th, 2008 16:07
Although, I unfortunately cannot vote, I’m a strong supporter of Hillary. For starters, I think that Hillary is more confident and experienced than any of the other candidates namely Obama. In terms of their policies, I don’t see a stark difference between Obama and Clinton besides her health care plan and her home interest rate plan. I think it ultimately comes down to whether the country’s ready for an african-american president or a woman president. Quite honestly, I feel that sexism is far more trivialized in this country than racism. Not to downplay the racism that occurs, but I feel that the glass-roof for woman is far lower than it is for men in general. Moreover, I think many of us are being far too harsh on Hillary for the simple reason that she’s a woman. People have a hard time accepting it, but we would never brand a male candidate as calculating, sly, or aloof. I feel that people dislike Hillary because she is different from the conventional conception of what society thinks a woman ought to be. The one time she got emotional after the Iowa primary, the media pounced on her saying she was trying to play her “woman card”, which is ironic because when she wasn’t emotional, they said she doesn’t act like a woman and she’s all “polarized”. I greatly respect Hillary for ignoring the constant sexist remarks made by her male counterparts as well as women too and doing what she believes in. Finally, I think the “change” that Obama proposes is highly superficial. I would appreciate it if one of the Obama supporters on this thread would clarify what the change really is to me. From what I have inferred, it seems that the politics that Obama advocates for is just another name for the politics that is present in DC already. I feel that Obama has plenty of time to gain experience and run again for president at which point I would surely consider supporting him. Regardless, if Obama wins the primary, I’ll still support him.
Posted from: 165.254.143.3
February 4th, 2008 16:11
Bietz — I am a little confused by the end of your last post. I don’t mean this as a swipe against Romney — I find him the most palatable of all of the Republicans, and I respect my good friend Ryan Hamilton’s work on his campaign — but what do you mean by Romney being more “principled”? This term follows a sentence in which you acknowledge Romney will lower taxes for the upper class and for corporations, and that he will nominate anti-union judges. Do you mean that he will stick to his *own* principles?
Posted from: 165.254.143.3
February 4th, 2008 16:12
I agree so, so much with Narayan’s post. Very well said.
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
February 4th, 2008 16:35
Cruz: something to be said for a known commodity that a Democratic congress won’t get suckered into… although they get suckered into everything else.
Narayan: “I feel that sexism is far more trivialized in this country than racism. Not to downplay the racism that occurs, but I feel that the glass-roof for woman is far lower than it is for men in general.”
From Human Rights Watch:
“The disproportionate representation of black Americans in the U.S. criminal justice system is well documented. Blacks comprise 13 percent of the national population, but 30 percent of people arrested, 41 percent of people in jail, and 49 percent of those in prison. Nine percent of all black adults are under some form of correctional supervision (in jail or prison, on probation or parole), compared to two percent of white adults. One in three black men between the ages of 20 and 29 was either in jail or prison, or on parole or probation in 1995. One in ten black men in their twenties and early thirties is in prison or jail. Thirteen percent of the black adult male population has lost the right to vote because of felony disenfranchisement laws.”
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
February 4th, 2008 16:36
It’s the glass-ceiling, not roof. That’s on fire.
Posted from: 24.6.64.186
February 4th, 2008 16:48
my bad, bietz.
Posted from: 136.152.145.182
February 4th, 2008 16:49
+1 on Hillary’s apparent insincerity. If you listen to the tones in her voice, I always hear a plea for us to think she’s sincere. This is just a feeling, so I can’t really defend this, but every Hillary says seems thoroughly vetted, and calculated to win votes rather than espouse an identity. I agree their policy positions are very similar, but I’ve seen them both in person, and had a conversation with Obama, and I just think that Hillary flat out can’t lead the way Barack has the potential to.
Posted from: 66.176.42.254
February 4th, 2008 17:01
I think you’re taking Narayan’s point out of context. Obama has definitely not departed from traditional D.C. politics. Bill’s “fairy tale” remark was deliberately twisted into a racial slur rather than examining his actual argument, Obama began the attacks against Hillary in the heated debate in S.C. by linking Hillary to the corporate board of Wal-Mart, and as Narayan put, he doesnt have a position that illustrates a change from Washington thinking. Nevertheless, Hillary is criticized as being ruthless, a fearmonger, and a racist. We must remember that this is a democratic primary. While most of the statistics you point to may hold true in the conservative areas of the country, I think liberals are notorious for reverse discrimination. We are not yet at the point where we set both whites and blacks on equal footing. I think this sentiment may be partly responsible for the forgiveness over Obama’s lack of experience. If he was a white candidate, I dont think he could get away with it.
What is appalling is the snide remarks politcos make about Hillary’s gender…I think that if Hillary was a man, she would have very low unfavorables. Much of the opposition to her charachter deals with her ruthlessness or lack of principle. I think most of these attacks are based in gender bias.
Posted from: 69.134.16.205
February 4th, 2008 17:13
I agree with Jay. To me it seems that Hillary simply is running off a platform that outlines her desire for power. It seems like it is more of a “Bill was president, and now I want to be as well.” Again, just like Jay this is more of a feeling, but I sincerely feel that she seems like she calculates her answers to even the most basic question. For example in the Democratic Debates, a question was asked about the difference between her and the previous Clinton era. She talked about how 35 years back she helped children. Now I understand they want to dodge leading questions, but that is a bit obvious and dilatory.
I believe Obama is right in saying that you want someone who is experienced, but also right. I dont think Clinton will win if she gets the nomination. It might be because I’m from Chapel Hill but from simply asking around and listening to people discussing candidates many people would vote for McCain/Romney over Clinton.
I think Obama can also bring the nation together, where as Clinton’s “tried and true” approach to being a Democrat would polarize it.
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
February 4th, 2008 17:17
Joshua: How am I taking Naryan’s point out of context? On what basis do you believe that “if Hillary was a man, she would have very low unfavorables?” I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I don’t think it is as cut-and-dry as you make it. Oppositional politics is something I feel as though I am fairly cognizant. I do disagree with you that if a white person wouldn’t “get away” with what Obama gets away with? I’m not sure what you mean by “get away with.”
Also, Clinton exploits gender much more than Obama exploits his race. Clinton brought Bill (a mistake as it seems) to be the “heavy” in the campaign *against* Obama. Also, her crying also exploits this same thing. She must have been reading some polls before New Hampshire because today she cried again at an event. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/04/hillary-clinton-cries-in-_n_84823.html
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
February 4th, 2008 17:24
Narayan – my ceiling comment wasn’t so much to be critical so much as to make the joke. about the roof. which is on fire.
Posted from: 75.71.25.178
February 4th, 2008 17:33
OBAMANIA!
Among other reasons, from a speech standpoint he is a superb orator.
Full speaker points Mr. Obama, full speaks.
too bad I cant vote.
Posted from: 64.61.74.106
February 4th, 2008 17:43
I’m an enthusiastic Clinton supporter (and I’m also late to a Clinton event, so I have to keep this quick). Like Jon, I believe in her platform. Considering where our country currently stands, I just don’t feel comfortable with the gamble that is Barack Obama. I’m fine with the change message, but I simply don’t see how exactly he’ll bring about change. Ah, right, with unity! Oooh. I don’t know what that means and, moreover, I don’t WANT to necessarily be united with some of the pols across the aisle. I’m sorry, but experience in actually achieving change matters in my book. My teenage sister has health care BECAUSE of HRC’s work. That’s real change. Let’s think back to 92– I love Bill Clinton, but remember the clusterfuck that was his first year or two? I want someone who knows what they’re doing from day 1. Hillary Clinton has shown proven leadership, so I’m voting for her tomorrow.
Posted from: 66.108.84.96
February 4th, 2008 17:49
Jay — I’d argue that Barack Obama’s rhetoric is the most calculating, vetted, and tailored of the entire field.
Posted from: 66.108.84.96
February 4th, 2008 17:57
The “crying” today was after a kind introduction from a friend at an event.
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
February 4th, 2008 18:01
“vetted” is one of Clinton’s positives. She has been examined and dissected and taken apart and ridiculed and checked. That means there won’t be surprises at the last minute.
a negative of obama is that he is not well-vetted. I worry about last minute surprises.
Posted from: 66.176.42.254
February 4th, 2008 18:01
“On what basis do you believe that “if Hillary was a man, she would have very low unfavorables?””
The core of the anti-Hillary movement attacks her character. The character attacks they make would not be made if she was a man. I think this is cut and dry. I agree a comparative statement like, “Who is a greater victim of prejudice, Hillary or Obama?” is harder to answer.
“I do disagree with you that if a white person wouldn’t “get away” with what Obama gets away with? I’m not sure what you mean by “get away with.””
“Also, Clinton exploits gender much more than Obama exploits his race.”
Why is Obama the candidate for change? How can he effectively sell that? He doesn’t have a record to back that claim up. He gets away with it because he is a physical embodiment for change. Because of this, I feel that most of Obama’s campaign is based on his race. This isn’t clearly apparent. Nevertheless, it is one of the only ways I can justify his level of credibility with his lack of credentials. Hillary has more leverage to appeal to women because she has enacted greater reform for women in America than Obama has enacted for African Americans. After watching the video for both crying incidents, I feel that both were genuine. The antagonism she has received for crying only furthers my point. People claim that her displays of emotion aren’t genuine and simply are last ditch attempts to boost her performance in polls. If a male cried, they would probably lose all support for being girlish, but no one would question that they were genuine.
Posted from: 66.108.84.96
February 4th, 2008 18:05
Agreed with Bietz. I was using the term “vetted” in the sense that his aides have helped him tailor his message and choose his rhetoric and design his message. I didn’t mean media-vetted. Right now, he’s pretty much gotten a free pass. RIght now.
Posted from: 71.104.246.208
February 4th, 2008 18:08
I cannot vote (16 years old), but to me the greatest advantage (policies aside) that Obama has over Clinton is that he could actually win November. Clinton, especially if she is pitted against McCain, will be hard pressed to garner a sizeable amount of independent votes. For many Americans, particularly independents, Hillary is too divisive and calculating. In comparison, McCain thrives on independent voters. Moreover, McCain has done a better than anticipated job of getting support from the Republican base (look at Florida). Basically, a McCain/Clinton general election will almost certainly go in McCain’s direction. The thought of McCain, or any Republican for that matter, being president makes me bleed inside.
So, on that note, if I were voting, i would vote Obama because he could actually win in November. Obama would mobilize the anti-war democratic base far more than McCain would mobilize the Republican base. To boot, Obama is also extremely talented at garnering independent votes, given his awe-inspiring oratorical ability, likeable personality, and great life story.
Posted from: 72.80.248.101
February 4th, 2008 18:17
I would be pleased to vote for either Clinton or Obama in November. The reason people seem to enjoy Obama’s campaign for change is that his speeches are eloquent and powerfully liberal. However, I don’t believe Obama has the gravity to be a successful president. His words are lovely, but if he were able to implement this change message, we would see more than just striking words in his experience.
Hillary Clinton has the experience to take actions, Obama does not. Ryan, does not seem to understand that that while he makes jokes about her “picking the linens for state dinners” she has valuable experience, in and out of the white house.
While many can give reasons why they don’t support some candidates, they allow that to validate a vote for Obama, but his lack of experience will take his bold ambitions longer to materialize than many seem to know. Obama to me provides more words than actual evidence of his qualifications.
Hillary’s years in senate during a particularly delicate time for New York, demonstrate her ability to adapt to the needs of the nation. Her understanding of what CAN be accomplished given government bureaucracy far surpasses Obama’s. The bottom line is that She IS more qualified.
While I am tempted to vote for Obama’s words and dreams, and will if Hillary is not the democratic candidate in November. I believe that her experience and understanding of what is a reality and what is possible surpasses that of Obama’s words. The bottom line is that both are fine candidates but, when it comes down to experience, Obama does not have enough to follow through with his plans for change.
Posted from: 69.181.125.125
February 4th, 2008 18:30
a tidbit about electability: the national journal polled a large group of republican senators and representatives on whom they would like their party to run against in november. 70 percent of them would rather run against hillary clinton than barack obama. just food for thought.
Posted from: 71.104.246.208
February 4th, 2008 18:32
Hillary Clinton will literally mobilize Republicans against her. They will vote against her, not in favor of McCain. I really think that nominating Hillary for president would be a waste of a perfectly good chance for the democrats to take back this once great country. If she is nominated, she will lose, and we will have to suffer through four or even eight more years of more of the same Republican shit.
Posted from: 75.134.142.27
February 4th, 2008 18:34
While I have many other reasons for supporting Obama the most important for me is that I think he has a much better shot at winning in November.
According to a Rasmussen report the potential matchups would break down as follows (in MN at least):
Clinton V. McCain
Clinton: 44%
McCain: 44%
Obama V. McCain
Obama:47%
McCain:41%
Clinton V. Romney
C: 49%
R: 40%
Obama V. Romney
O: 52%
R: 36%
The key factor in my mind is going to be independent voters and Hilary is just viewed in a negative light by way to many people. Here are how peoples opinions break down:
Very unfavorable
C: 32%
O:17%
M:17%
R:24%
Very Favorable
C: 23%
O: 31%
M:18%
R:11%
Looking at the numbers Obama is the best bet for a democratic victory.
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
February 4th, 2008 18:36
Let me respond to Joshua’s question for a second.
You say Obama has no track record for change. 1. I’d say that voting “present” to send the message he wants to work out a better deal on the same subject instead of believing in purely partisan politics is change. I’d say that getting a large percentage of Independent voters is something that the other Dems can’t offer. I’d say inspiring enough young people so instead of cameras and tripod camcorders at his victory speech in Iowa, there were iPhones and Cell Phones, representing the younger movement that he has inspired. He’s one of us. He’s part of the younger generation.
Our nation is at a crossroads. Whatever the right decision is, it has to be made soon. Why? If it isn’t obvious to you, read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27world-t.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&ref=magazine&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Regardless of what happens, it’s our generation that has to deal with the consequences. I want someone who can really deal with the issues because he knows he has to live with them.
2. I’d say that on top of all of that, Obama’s lack of a record makes him the symbol for change. He’s new to the table, and he doesn’t fit the mold of the rest of the candidates.
Posted from: 66.176.42.254
February 4th, 2008 18:37
Numbers are meaningless until the republican attack machine gets into gear. Kerry was far ahead of Bush before swiftboating season.
Posted from: 71.104.246.208
February 4th, 2008 18:37
tru dat
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
February 4th, 2008 18:37
wow, that’s impressive research Theis. I’ve been looking for a decent MN poll for about a week
Posted from: 71.104.246.208
February 4th, 2008 18:37
i was saying tru dat to chris’ post, not yours
Posted from: 71.123.192.89
February 4th, 2008 18:38
I find it interesting that people who are supposed to be the most informed high school/college people in the country make claims that are both warrantless and without proof. For example – the comment about Hillary’s questionable personal ethics. What questionable personal ethics. Honestly, the worst thing this woman has ever done was stand by her man when many women would have taken the easy way out and divorced him. From the time I was 13 and my brother had her as a law professor at the University of Arkansas, I have never known of anything she did that was not for the good of other people. While in the end, I will likely to vote for the democrat nominee in November, I hope people recognize there is a difference in saying there is a need for change and being a proven agent of change as Hillary has been for over 30 years. She could have sat in a huge law office and make an enormous amount of money, but she has been in public service. If she would not have married Bill Clinton and moved to Arkansas, she was going to be a child advocate not a high powered attorney of slum lords. (opps I just made an adhominem but at least mine was the truth). Also — Barak is a first term senator = he doesn’t have the knowledge or experience to deal with the foreign leaders whom Hillary already knows. As First Lady she has a great deal of knowledge of and already relationships with these leaders. For for someone who has proved to be a facilitator of change… not one who sounds good but says nothing specific.
You would HATE to lose a debate round against someone who just sounded good and you had more ink on the paper… think about this when listening to Hillary – she has ink on the page — Barak just speaks well.
Hoping the primary elections in Texas have meaning.
Posted from: 71.104.246.208
February 4th, 2008 18:38
To Joshua:
The Republican base will take action against Hillary. You have NO idea…
Posted from: 71.104.246.208
February 4th, 2008 18:40
None of Hillary’s merits mean anything if she cant win.
Posted from: 75.134.142.27
February 4th, 2008 18:40
Also Barack is even able to win over some Republicans something Hilary will never be able to do. For example my Dad has not once in his life voted for a democrat yet he will be caucusing for Obama tomorrow. Thank god.
Posted from: 71.104.246.208
February 4th, 2008 18:43
I have a friend who has been phone-polling for Obama. People just like the dude. They will vote for him and we will finally have a president who isnt a fiery ball of evil.
Posted from: 66.176.42.254
February 4th, 2008 18:46
“1. I’d say that voting “present” to send the message he wants to work out a better deal on the same subject instead of believing in purely partisan politics is change.”
Well, Obama himself defended his “present” votes by saying that they are commonly used in the Illinois legislature to express dissent with the effect of legislation rather than the purpose of legislation. He admits there that this isn’t a change tactic.
“I’d say that getting a large percentage of Independent voters is something that the other Dems can’t offer.”
Republicans have added a new preemptive attack to Obama on top of his lack of experience, they call him one of the most liberal members of the senate. This is relatively easy to prove and Obama will quickly lose a lot of independent support even without Bloomberg running.
“I’d say inspiring enough young people so instead of cameras and tripod camcorders at his victory speech in Iowa, there were iPhones and Cell Phones, representing the younger movement that he has inspired. He’s one of us. He’s part of the younger generation.”
Um…most Americans have cell phones. I have an iPhone and I support Hillary. I think if he gets slaughtered in November, young Americans will learn an important lesson, speeches aren’t the primary component of politics.
“2. I’d say that on top of all of that, Obama’s lack of a record makes him the symbol for change. He’s new to the table, and he doesn’t fit the mold of the rest of the candidates.”
Bush. Need I say more.
Then I’ll nominate myself to be president. Jon Cruz can be my running mate.
Posted from: 71.123.192.89
February 4th, 2008 18:50
You are hilarious– I HAVE NO IDEA! Give me a break — I am actually old enough to have voted and lived through the Clinton years ;). The difference is that people say the Republicans will attack her, but she has a record of reaching across the aisle and working with Republican while in the Senate. She is electable. Once people stop falling for the “but he is so inspiring” and look at the facts – then they will realize. That is where the INFORMED citizenry comes in. Inform those who are not informed on facts not feelings.
Posted from: 75.134.142.27
February 4th, 2008 18:51
Wow I dont think I have ever posted so many times in quick succession on a page but this is actually interesting. I think that alot of people are looking at this in the wrong way. Obama and Clinton have WAY more things in common than they do things that are different. No matter which way the primary goes the platform will be roughly the same. So without a HUGE policy difference, I think the choice comes down to who can win. They are both incredible candidates and the personal attacks that are being launched by both sides against each other will be damning when the general elections roll around. The best thing the democrats could do for the republicans this primary season is to divide and or give the republicans the ability to use the attacks that are being made now against us in November.
Posted from: 72.80.248.101
February 4th, 2008 18:53
When we vote Obama because he’s favored among others and not because of his experience (which Hillary has more of) or platform (which is so similar to Hillary’s) then we uproot democracy. The truth is when democrats compromise their vote to strategize against the republicans, then they have already won. At least they are voting for someone who they have full confidence in.
Posted from: 72.80.248.101
February 4th, 2008 18:55
If you vote one way to prevent a vote by another, then its not YOU voting, its them.
Posted from: 75.134.142.27
February 4th, 2008 19:04
I don’t get why experience is such a good thing anyway. Nixon was FAR more experienced in 1960, in fact his campaign slogan against Kennedy was “experience counts”. That was his main attack against Kennedy. I think we all know who turned out to be the better leader. Just because Hilary has been around longer does not mean she would be able the implement the platform the best. I think the fact that Obama is liked on both sides of the aisle and is far less divisive makes it more likely that he would be successful.
Posted from: 72.80.248.101
February 4th, 2008 19:05
Jon would like everyone to know that he is at a Hillary rally right now.
Posted from: 72.80.248.101
February 4th, 2008 19:29
I don’t find Hillary as divisive as many claim. I feel that she still has the capability to reach out and grab voters from many parties (especially given her similar platform to Obama, who apparently has these capabilities). With regard to experience, I mean that Hillary’s experiences in politics have demonstrated her ability to enact change and help, whereas I don’t see that from Obama. Don’t get me wrong I believe he has the drive and desire to enact change, but from an experience standpoint I don’t see the change. Remember, I’m still not a fan of voting for strategy. But, I don’t understand why people will support Obama but NOT Hillary. If Hillary loses it is likely that her supporters will vote Obama. If Obama loses I don’t believe his voters will ignore the platform they wanted, and so logically they would still vote for Hillary. If they don’t then it is evident that they vote for Obama’s words and not his platform, in which case he’s not the deserving candidate. So, saying that Obama is more likely to win is hardly a good reason to vote for him anyway.
Posted from: 160.94.28.143
February 4th, 2008 19:52
The Obama camp always paints electability as a HUGE Obama strength, when its really not that clear, despite how your dad votes, theis. From yesterday
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Vote2008/Story?id=4233020&page=3
“Among the general public overall, it’s a 49-46 percent McCain-Clinton race and a 46-49 percent McCain-Obama race; those 3-point differences are not enough to constitute a lead for either McCain vs. Clinton or Obama vs. McCain, given sampling tolerances. Clinton-Romney standings are 53-41 percent, Obama-Romney, a wider 59-34 percent.”
The advantage that Obama has over Clinton in a McCain contest is within error. Attitudes will change over the course of the election with candidate exposure, and the fact that Hillary is more experienced at fighting the Republican noise machine will serve her well in the general. The anti-Clinton movement is already in the conservative mainstream, she’ll be less surprised (and better equipped) to deal with an inevitable cheapshot. Of course that’s all speculation, as all of this crap is. Regardless, the losing dem NEEDS to send their pack of voters to the party candidate. I’m more worried about the Obama camp not voting for Clinton than I am the other way around, but the loser needs to make a clear endorsement because Obama and Clinton are functionally the same candidate (despite what I find to be some ignorant idealistic differences in foreign policy), just with different prospects of getting things done.
Also interesting,
“If Clinton is the nominee, 15 percent of Democrats say they’d rather vote for McCain; if Obama’s the nominee, 20 percent say they’d go to McCain. A key factor is the extent to which those intraparty tempers cool after the Democratic race is decided.”
Posted from: 64.91.217.43
February 4th, 2008 20:01
although the texas primary is not until early march, i will definitely be voting for barack. 2 primary issues i am concerned with happen to be healthcare and the war in iraq, and barack’s proposal for solving the huge lack of healthcare in the country seems a lot more appealing to both republicans and democrats alike; subsequently, the malleability of his proposal is more re-assuring in terms of it actually coming to be. also, i think hillary is way too soft on the iraq issue, whereas barack has had a firm opinion in relation to the war for a long time. moreover, after reading several different newspaper articles, it seems a lot more logical for a general democrat win if barack gets the spot; texas is where that comes into play. john mccain needs to win the republican spot because generally texans will straight up not vote for him. additionally, texans will straight up not vote for hillary. barack, however, has a pretty strong following here, and has the power to make a prominent red state go blue. the end.
Posted from: 64.91.217.43
February 4th, 2008 20:03
to make my post make a little more sense, everyone who is voting tomorrow please vote for barack, so i can vote for him later. texas will be a big win for the democrats if it’s barack v. mccain. obamania continue!
Posted from: 75.134.142.27
February 4th, 2008 20:15
Hogan, you would post for the first time in forever just to contradict me. The problem with the poll you posted is that it is a poll of random people not registered or even likely voters. Beyond that however when has Hilary ever been able to successfully withstand the republican attack machine on a national stage? Barack disables the attacks because mud-slinging is not effective if their own base likes the guy personally even if they disagree politically. Either way though Tim is right people need to support who ever the candidate is.
Posted from: 136.242.129.93
February 4th, 2008 20:43
A couple of things: whatever is said about this community, the idea that it is ideologically diverse is nonsense, and this thread proves it because I am the singular Republican on this thread of sixty two comments.
Secondly, I haven’t been more happy about the state of the Democratic Party ever before. The fissures opening now, I think, at least, are the beginnings of a civil war that will engulf your party (though I cannot say my fellows in the GOP may not succumb to a similar situation, especially if the Arizona spoiler gets elected).
Posted from: 71.160.56.34
February 4th, 2008 20:47
John Edwards is still on the ballot in California. This is who I will be casting my ballot for tomorrow.
Posted from: 66.108.84.96
February 4th, 2008 20:56
“You would HATE to lose a debate round against someone who just sounded good and you had more ink on the paper… think about this when listening to Hillary – she has ink on the page — Barak just speaks well.”
So well put. (And so much better than my lame attempt at a debate analogy.)
Posted from: 138.16.32.79
February 4th, 2008 20:56
bietz- why edwards?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/25/feingold-rips-edwards-aga_n_83225.html
russ was my first choice for this gig almost a year ago, so what he says carries a lot of weight with me…
Posted from: 134.84.33.251
February 4th, 2008 21:15
Quinn, I would be willing to bet Pam wycoffs undying love on Texas staying a red state, but good luck.
Skeletor, no poll strongly disagrees…without one that does I don’t think its off the mark to say electability is not as huge for Obama as his camp plays up. I also really doubt that the Republicans are going to lighten up and go easy on Obama because they think he’s a nice guy. And I’d be willing to bet the experienced Clinton PR defense will be better than Obama’s since that family has been in the conservative crosshairs for so long. Especially with Hillarycare 2.0, she has hopefully learned some tricks. But like I said those types of things are impossible to prove at this point.
Ryan, is the gross liberal slant really a surprise? I think the difference between the dem infighting and republican infighting appears to be that the base is still committed to either candidate. For example the Left’s Ann Coulter/Limbaugh (I have no idea who that is for us, actually) haven’t announced that they are campaigning for the other side/blasted the nature of their platform as “against core party values.” Same goes for the nature of the Obama/Clinton debates. Most of the debates for the dems have been over silly personality differences.
Posted from: 75.73.219.151
February 4th, 2008 21:17
HOGAN YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER THAN TO RUN EMPIRICS AGAINST THEIS.
That being said, I was reflecting upon my earliest memories of debate the other day (since I recently debated what I believe to be my last round, I’ve gotten extremely nostalgic). Anyways, come along with me as we journey back to my freshman year of ’04…
I was a freshfaced youngster unaware of the large legacy his senior teammates had left him from the years prior. An enthusiastic and verbally abusive John Scoggin is starting his debate career alongside me at Edina, just as his sister’s debate career is just taking off. Nolan Green has decided to pursue debate at St. Thomas Academy, rather than repping the good ol’ green n’ white (he later recanted). I have yet to be taken under the wing of the ever intelligent/helpful Mihir Gupta, and I’m in the midst of an election year especially fraught with conflict. Little do I know that in addition to the legacy left by debaters past, I am left with one of the most well-known coaches in the nation: Mike Bietz. His glasses, longer, curling hair, and constant need to check his Blackberry (which, I believe, at the time, were quite a hot item, similar to having an iPhone nowadays) made him something of a cool neighbor-figure that happened to just happen to be in the area and wander his way to debate practice every week because he wanted to rather than due to any prior obligations.
I was still imbued with the naïveté of my youth, and I was utterly confident, nay, DAMN SURE of my right wing beliefs. Sitting down in the couches in the teachers lounge (i.e. the debate practice room, which now happens to be a cafe run by the school and where I now attend weekly table-tennis practices after what seemed like 10 years of renovations), I sat quietly and waited for someone to signal for practice to start (Ann Weigand, the novice coach at the time, seemed to have a difficult time getting Scoggin to cooperate, along with his then-crony, Thomas Kakalios).
The election that were coming in seemed to indicate the same things: Bush was winning. Of course, I had no idea that I was entering a notoriously left-wing (occasionally bizarrely and crazily so) activity. Mike Bietz comes in, and sits down on a couch across from me. To be honest, I’m not sure if I even knew he was a coach at this time, since I think this was perhaps my second practice. Joe Schmidt, the policy coach, sits down next to him and they begin to chat about the election. The one line (which is not in its exact form, but is true to the original meaning) that Mike Bietz said that stayed with me all these years was: “I don’t see how a country that calls itself ‘the Land of the Free’ can elect someone who actively opposes gay marriage!” My friend, who knew how outspoken I was on right wing issues, smiles and looks at me, expecting a retort. However, 9th grade Jordan Grimstad is not yet arrogant or confident enough in himself to challenge an adult’s political views (perhaps luckily so).
Now here I am, four years later, and a week ago or so I just debated my final round with John Scoggin. I seem to have come full circle, in some sense. The panel in the round prior to that one round included the first good debater I ever remember watching (Christian Tarsney), one of the first judges I’ve ever had (Fischer), and a judge who, in my first years debating, I would typically have a difficult time adapting to, but managed to learn how to by the end (Fones).
But since that one line that I found so controversial at the time, I’ve undergone a major political shift since my time in debate. I’m still a right winger on punishing criminals, abortion issues, gun control, taxes, and some other generic stuff, but I’ve noticed a profound shift in the ways I look at how war is conducted, what rights people ought to have, what people’s personal responsibilities ought to be, etc. I’ve become more attuned to women’s issues (I know this may look like it contradicts the abortion issue, but believe me, I make it work) and queer issues. I think I’ve gained a very very strong distaste for the religious right (personally I believe they’re an embarrassment to the rational right; not to go on a rant here {in the words of Miller}, but despite the fact that I’m now ambivalent about the issue of gay marriage, there are probably plenty of economic {i.e. rational} reasons as to why gay marriage isn’t necessarily good for society on the whole, and saying ‘ITS AGAINST GODS WILL’ just makes you look stupid, but that’s a whole other issue). I’ve definitely learned that any policy issue must be backed by a strong leader that knows what he’s doing, and my allegiance has shifted from Bush to anyone else who knows what the hell they’re doing and won’t try to throw money at lost causes. I personally believe that the Iraq invasion is still morally justified; however, I’d much rather have a president that could carry out their ideas effectively rather than a president who could carry out ideas that overlap with mine ineffectively. At this point, I’m curious to see how a democratic president could handle the country, but at the same time I’d prefer a rational right winger in power. I don’t have the sense that there are any such candidates, so I may be voting libertarian this election. I really have no idea though, and I’m going to have to see how things shake out. At this point in time, I’m praying Obama gets picked over Clinton, since I would strongly prefer not to have anything resembling a dynasty in the White House again.
I hope you enjoyed this coming of age tale, and I hope I didn’t render it incoherent in my 45 mins+ of writing it.
Posted from: 75.134.142.27
February 4th, 2008 21:29
Bulldog, I did not say the republicans would not try to attack him I said that the attacks would not stick. Also, You say you havn’t seen any numbers that show electability going strongly in Obama’s favor, You should look at post # 40 I think those are pretty strong. Finally If she has these “tricks” what are they and why hasn;t she utilized them yet?
P.S. Some kids in study hall were talking about how hot they think your mom is… how does that make feel?
Posted from: 68.11.25.35
February 4th, 2008 21:43
Re: post 18. As far as I can tell, Barack’s message of change isn’t so much Washington-based change as it is my, yours, and everyone’s change. A change to a belief in the goodness of humanity and to a spirit of togetherness in the face of adversity. I know those phrases are horribly cliche, but I think his message of change is that we should no longer think that those ideas are cliche, or the stuff of “fairy tales.” His hero lived in an era that saw the rise of optimistic, idealistic American Transcendental thought, and I think he’s drawing on that optimism. To his credit, I think that most great political world leaders have touched on those ideas and have sought to bring them forth.
Posted from: 66.108.84.96
February 4th, 2008 21:55
People said Hillary Clinton could never, ever win the Senate seat in New York. She did. In a landslide. Then she won again. In a landslide.
The electability “issue” is old non-news. Clinton and Obama would both be competitive with the Republican nominee…particularly if the GOP decides to put the mean-spirited, out-of-touch John “Keating Five” McCain at the head of the ticket.
Posted from: 138.16.32.79
February 4th, 2008 21:57
whether you support obama or not, this is pretty cool: http://www.dipdive.com/
you got common in there kareem abdul jabbar, it’s a will.i.am production (hip hop is dead).
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
February 4th, 2008 22:10
HUCKABEE HUCKABEE HUCKABEE HUCKABEE HUCKABEE
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
February 4th, 2008 22:12
this sums up my decision:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjYv2YW6azE
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
February 4th, 2008 22:14
a brief interjection of seriousness: wait, are there actually people who think texas has a chance of going blue? am i missing something?
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
February 4th, 2008 22:15
Joshua, they can run all the attack ads they want against him. Hilary’s already tried it. It doesn’t work.
His voting record to those who understand it speaks for itself. Let’s say he is the most liberal senator. Voting “present” usually means that you are willing to vote for a similar bill, just not the current version. He can be as liberal as can be, but the will to compromise is something that cannot be overlooked.
You miss the point. No other candidate has the appeal to our group. You are part of the demographic Obama Targets. You are the generation that will grow up without a true foe to US policy, and yet, it’s influence globally seems so low (refer to the link in my last post). Have you looked at the demographics of the primaries so far? Huge surges in YOUNG LIBERAL VOTERS. Why? Because they’ve found a messenger to DC. Barack’s goal is to try and channel all the energy that goes into the “Save Darfur” movements, and move it into politics where it can set a policy that can do more than they could imagine. That’s the message I’m trying to point out he’s sending.
Good for you and Jon, good luck finding 10 people to vote for you guys outside of your friends and family.
Obama is a politician that has no record of being a run of the mill liberal, that’s the appeal.
Re: Jane
Locally in MN, there’s a Judge by the name of John Brown (I’ll leave my personal perspective out of this one). When I debated in front of him vs. Grimstad @ Nat Quals, he said that Jordan was more persuasive than I was, and that’s what got his ballot.
To put that in context, if your a policy oriented Dem, you should have been pushing for Richardson, who’s a great guy personally (I’ve meet him before, and he’d be a great president), but he’s a policy nerd.
The point being, while I had hella answers on the Flow to what Jordan was saying, I wasn’t making it clear to the Judge why any of those reasons should make him care, whereas Jordan was telling a solid story, and being persuasive in doing so.
You could have the greatest platform ever, but if you can’t communicate it, you’re bound to fail. Same goes for foreign leaders. You can have a strategy for global success between two nations, but if you can’t explain it to the other leader, it doesn’t matter.
“I hope people recognize there is a difference in saying there is a need for change and being a proven agent of change as Hillary has been for over 30 years…” I’m sorry, but being around for 30 years in politics, and being the Husband of the last Democrat President who still wields tremendous power within the party is not change. Change implies something new, a different direction, not 30 YEARS OF THE SAME MESSAGE>
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
February 4th, 2008 22:16
and Grimstad, I followed your post. I found myself laughing at what havoc TK and Scoggin must have caused
Posted from: 68.209.198.15
February 4th, 2008 22:16
hella illegit triple post:
grimstad what the hell
Posted from: 75.72.158.189
February 4th, 2008 22:28
I would without question risk pams love on MN staying blue as well theis, and thats only a 1 state poll youve got, not a national one, also likely within a margin of error (44/44 and 47/41). the point being what cruz just said: electability is a null issue for obama even though its played up like its going to make the campaign. and stop spreading rumors about my mom. gross.
Posted from: 68.98.109.16
February 4th, 2008 22:30
This should shock no one. Ron Paul. Here’s why:
I’m an Arizona-registered GOP voter. I think calling McCain a republican is as ridiculous as calling Lieberman a democrat – he stands for none of the values of the party. That said, I’ll vote GOP in the general election if he is the candidate even though the two most famous pieces of legislation bearing his name involve stifling freedom of speech and rejecting the notion of law being the basis of a country that is a republic and instead allowing immigration under the notion that if we can’t stop it we might as well adapt to it and ignore the law. Mitt Romney is only slightly better than McCain , but both of these candidates are unprincipled and change their viewpoints in the direction the wind blows.
I agree with Ron Paul in all areas except the War in Iraq, and frankly that isn’t an important issue to me. He also offered me an internship; while I took the one with Congressman Tancredo instead, that always counts for something. I think fiscal responsibility in government requires a drastically reduced role of government in society and a drastically reduced taxation policy. I think that the regulation of corporations stifles the free market, and economic growth and prosperity requires the free market to reign supreme.
Posted from: 24.155.229.81
February 4th, 2008 22:38
I haven’t read this entire thread, just don’t have the time, so I apologize if I am missing some things, or beating a dead horse. But, Ms. Boyd, given that you directly question my intellect and credibility, I thought I might answer you. To say that Hillary’s ethics are questionable is warrantless and unproven , is quite simply to ignore history. I, like most, am a strong believer that a person is innocent until proven guilty…and I don’t think that Hillary has been proven guility of anything, but this is not to say her ethics are not QUESTIONABLE. Let me give just one example: From 1978-1979, Hillary, who had NO experience in trading cattle options whatsoever, turned $1000 into $100,000. This is a rate of return better than George Soros ever saw. Economists have used computer models to determine the chances of this happening to be about 1/250 million. What is more odd is that when asked about this money she said it was inheritance. Then she claims she made it based off of James Blair’s cattle herd shrinkage theory, which makes no sense considering the vast majority of money she made was due to SHORTING cattle options. So, I don’t know if some people thought it’d be nice to payoff Bill’s wife, but I do think it is fair to say her ethics are QUESTIONABLE. As in they can be drawn into question. And this is to say nothing of Watergate, Travelgate, or Vince Foster. And it it is to say nothing of a presidential campaign that has shown no problem lying (claiming Obama said Republicans had the best ideas) and has no problem trying to ghettoize Obama as the black candidate (multiple references to drug use “in the neighborhood,” Bill’s comparisons to Jesse Jackson.)
Moreover, people keep insisting experience is necessary to get things done. I don’t know why this is true. Obama, like all presidents, will have a massive legislative communication office, filled with people who are well connected and have connections are well versed in legislative procedure. What is different about Obama is his ability to re-brand liberal policy. It is easy to see Republicans voting for an Obama healthcare plan, not at all easy to see them voting for Hillary’s. People dismiss Obama as being all sytle and fluff and no substance. This misses the point. With an Obama presidency a) there is a stronger likelihood of large coalition leading to a larger mandate and b) a stronger likelihood that Republicans will cross the aisle and support democratic legislation precisely because of his persona, and his all inviting political rhetoric. Case in point: Mark McKinnon, who made W’s adds and is now working for McCain, has so much respsect for Obama, that he has pledged not to work for McCain if Obama is the nominee. Finally, one thing which I think is not going addressed on this thread is how the presidential nominee will affect down ballot candidates. I have been working on Rick Noriega’s campaign to oust John Cornyn. Texas is a state that has a lot of Hillary haters, whether or not they are justified in their hate, less democrats are going to come to the polls, particularly considering Texas’s electoral irrelevance, if Hillary is the nominee. Obama has the potential to make democrats and independents come to the polls even in Texas, and help someone like Col. Noriega when a seat in the Senate.
Posted from: 72.193.59.38
February 4th, 2008 23:11
I’ve decided to put my foot in the door here, too. I interned for Barack Obama this year, and worked as a precinct captain in my neighborhood. I made nearly 1,000 phone calls in the weeks leading up to the caucus here in Nevada, and proudly canvassed many different neighborhoods for my candidate. The truth is, that Hillary cannot be elected in the general. I keep hearing this ”but she was elected in New York!” response, and it makes me cringe. A U.S. Senate race in an enormously liberal state, with the Clinton beloved name and machine, and she wasn’t expected to win? Come on, people. You have got to be kidding me. I know EIGHT different friends of mine alone, who if Clinton gets the nomination will not vote in the general. And I’m in that demographic. It isn’t that I profoundly dislike her, but it is the fact that I do not trust anyone who is willing to do anything to win. She takes more money from PACs and lobbyists than anyone, including the Republicans. I find that gross. Also, she keeps running on experience. And everywhere I go, including this forum, I hear this more than any other, as the platform for why she should be elected. Barack has MORE time in public office, just because he didn’t start as a U.S. senator because his spouse was a former president, does not mean that he should be discounted. Go to youtube, and look up the JFK?Nixon debates of 1960. NIXON says the same things of JFK, about experience. It’s amazing, like an echo of the criticism of today. You know, everywhere Barack goes and actually has the chance to reach out to people, he closes the Billary machines gap. This has been her contest to lose, and she’s doing a great job of that. And to Jon, who believes Barack is getting an apparent free ride- I respect your opinion greatly, but do you really believe that? This guy is having everything from his father’s religion, to his middle name pressed upon him. AND YES, to end my post, IT IS A MOVEMENT. It’s like my sister pointed out, when she was at the debate in L.A. last thursday: The supporters for Clinton were frigid old women, who tried to pull and break at Obama’s signs (which happened to my sis), and Obama’s supporters were busy touting silhouetted signs of the Senator, and dancing around a drum circle. That’s the difference in the movement, and my demographic, the people who disassociate from frigid old women, will not show up in November.
Posted from: 72.193.59.38
February 4th, 2008 23:38
One more note before I hit the sack, I do not mean to offend frigid old women. You may be vastly different than myself, but I do respect your opinion and I hope that none of you are (if there are any reading this) offended by my recent post.
Also, I’ve seen Barack speak in person 6 times, and have met him twice. On one occasion, we discussed Football. He believed, at the time, that the Bears were a much better team than mine, the Detroit Lions. The following week, the Lions beat the Bears. Aside from that, he inspired me.
Posted from: 67.40.155.155
February 4th, 2008 23:41
I got to see Senator Obama and President Clinton speak last week here in Denver. It was an exciting time for me because historic political movements were making a stop in my home town. The reality is that most of the Obama and Clintons policy agendas are very close. They’re different on some foreign policy matters and the methodology for health care.
What’s really compelling to me are Coop’s arguments about what Sen. Obama brings to the table in gathering votes from Republicans and Independents. The people in the center sway the election. In places like Texas, Missouri, Kentucky, and Colorado, finding a candidate who can appeal to a broad grouping of people has value beyond an indivdiual policy dispute.
Candidates and debaters like us are all sales people. One thing you learn in sales 101 is that selling your products is less relevant than selling yourself to the person in front of you. I tend to believe that Sen. Obama is a better salesperson.
Two interesting asides:
(1) The Clintons tend to run liberal and lean moderate/conservative when they govern.
(2) President Clinton sent cruise missiles into Sudan to go after a well known Al Qaida pharmaceuticals lab (he was simply about 36 hours too late) and he was accused of wagging the dog. Heh.
Michelin Massey
Posted from: 128.101.49.27
February 5th, 2008 00:07
sorry wade but im going to have to go with conan on this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNOhvKQkY74
Posted from: 128.101.49.27
February 5th, 2008 00:09
sincerely sorry to double post but as long as we’re on the topic of rhetorical genius, yet another reason to vote conan
1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi4-1d9DB9Q
2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bLeVKGSJWE
Posted from: 68.126.6.208
February 5th, 2008 00:28
I can’t even vote (16), but I’ve been following the race very closely and I’m really stuck on the fence between Hillary and Obama. I’ve been leaning toward Hillary for a while just because I think she would make more rational decisions in office and keep the nation in control (and, despite the beliefs of many Hillary bashers, “control” does not mean “impersonal polarity”). Rational decisions would be great for a nation in the delicate situation we are in right now. However, I like Obama a lot. He seems to be a great guy and I really think he’d rally the masses behind him and spart a revived American comeback onto the global scene. I’m not one of those cynics who thinks America is over, but Obama would definately boost our morale.
Cody (my man), I really loved the end of your post and I think it may have affected my stance. The educated young people of the country seem to be behind Obama (if they’re not stuck supporting Ron Paul… but I won’t start with that). I definately preferyoung people to old people. Sounds stupid, but think about it… I think that’s the real *change* that Obama brings to the table. Sure, he hasn’t done much yet because he hasn’t been elected. But I honestly think that the candidate who would bring the most change AFTER being elected would be Obama — the nation would be invigorated.
ps – people since when do we vote just because we think the candidate will win the General Election? I think that’s definately a positive, and it’s important, but it should be a secondary issue. Vote for substance, not strategy.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
February 5th, 2008 06:50
after reading a very interesting article on this very issue (Hillary v. Barry) in the New Yorker, i feel i can meaningfully contribute to this discussion.
The article noted how the fundamental difference in the two candidates is what their opinion of the presidency is. hillary sees the presidency as the natural leader of the executive branch and a job that is about “getting things done.” Barry O on the other hand sees the president as a post that can guide the legislature and agencies, but isn’t in full control. The president to Obama is primarily a motivator and less an actual doer.
I think there are a few things that are extremely problematic with Hillary’s point of view, which is why i support the big O:
A. She’s just plain wrong. Time and time again we have seen that the president cannot single-handedly “get things done.” In fact, the way the presidency is described in my AP Gov textbook is identical to how Obama thinks of it. The president has the power of the bully pulpit and not much else. Even presidents like FDR and LBJ (doers?) found their successes not in actually implementing policies but in convincing congress to implement them.
B. It’s a continuation of the Bush school of government. Bush et al wholeheartedly believe that the executive really can drive the government, even in a democratic society. This is a belief i find disturbingly mirrored when Hillary talks about people either being with her or against her (not a direct quote, but she did say that if you disagree with her when she thinks something needs to get done, too bad) and when she envisions the presidency as this all-powerful post.
C. Wrong branch of government darlin’. Unfortunately for Hillary legislative success means exactly zero for a president, since they don’t get votes, and can only influence through the bully pulpit. The only reason LBJ was successful in motivating Congress was that the man was owed god knows how many favors by members of Congress. Hillary is not that well liked in Congress, nor is she that feared, thus negating any benefit from her supposed “experience.” The president has an entire staff (i believe this was mentioned before) to do legislative work. This makes her skills if not redundant, irrelevant. Thus, i am left with Barack who has a unique skillset (rhetorical powah) that Hillary does not. Lest we forget, the president is primarily a rhetorical position. not even bush could have done everything he has without first convincing congress/the public that it was necessary in the war on terror. without a clever and fear inspiring catch-phrase, hillary’s policies will go exactly nowhere. in order to be effective, she will have to resort to the very tactics we’ve all grown to hate from our current government.
It frustrates me to see people who i respect so much take what seems to me to be a very clearly incorrect tack on this. Her experience is in politics as usual. You can blather about it all you want, but you can’t deny the fact that hillary gained her supposed experience by toeing the party line (not that barry isn’t a straight up liberal either) and by getting some meager bi-partisan bills passed. To me hillary is the flip-side of the Bush whitehouse’s polarization. That is not something i look forward to. I think ryan is still correct, and i think the numbers chris brings up should be more important than they have been. the president is not a winner take all monarchy. it is first and foremost a compromise post, about working with everyone in government, not telling them what to do. Barack Obama is a candidate that can inspire compromise, not division. That alone is enough to swing my vote.
Posted from: 71.123.192.89
February 5th, 2008 06:54
Ryan, I know there is a lot of speculation about her “ethics”, but all those items are items she was found to have done nothing wrong. BUT this brings up a fabulous point and several have said it. If you vote for someone because of their electability, you are already saying the Republicans will win and you are letting them dictate your vote. The idea of movements, the idea that “old women” are the only ones who support Hillary, and the idea that she is only running on her experience are interesting. Now — referring to the Kennedy – Nixon debates. Interesting point is that people who listened on the radio thought that Nixon won the debate – those who watched on TV thought Kennedy won the debate. Presentation made that difference. Also being in Texas- Kennedy was greatly and is still greatly hated by many of the Older Texans. A quote the other night – “Kennedy was an idiot.” Then again — Texans are a different bred. The election is far from over.
Posted from: 66.108.84.96
February 5th, 2008 07:09
Cody: an Obama supporter crashed the event I was at last night, being obnoxious and barking things at us. Also, our group consisted of mostly under-30s. Lots of gay men in sight, but no frigid old women.
.
I’ve watched Obama supporters take down Clinton signs, tear into her personally (here and elsewhere), crash other rallies, etc. More politics as usual.
.
Anecdotes? Yes. I mention these things because I find it odd that Obama’s all about changing the discourse, but so many Obama supporters are engaging in politics as usual while managing to think they’re doing something all together different. You know I have a lot of respect for you personally, and I’ll respect any choice you make politically, but I guess I kind of wish all Obama supporters would practice what their candidate preaches. The last time I truly believed a candidate was running a different kind of campaign was Bill Bradley’s run in 2000. Before that, Ross Perot in ’92.
.
I’m about to go out and vote. I’ll say that, if I were an undecided voter, I suspect the post that would most sway me to consider Obama would be Rebar’s latest. I think it’s the most substantive argument I’ve read for Obama on this thread. (I’ve also read the excellent article in The New Yorker that he is referencing, and it is excellent overall.) The reference to our future president as “darlin’” makes me cringe a bit, not going to lie, but I think otherwise a legitimate perception of the difference between the candidates is presented there.
.
P.S. Ryan, Watergate? I think you mean Whitewater? :o) It’s interesting you should mention Watergate, though, since Senator Clinton was a legal counsel who advised the Senate Judiciary Committee on the legal and historical precedents for impeachment.
.
P.P.S. Through Legislative work and legal work, Hillary Clinton has done more for young people than her opponent ever has. I’m more swayed by that commitment to young people than to rhetorical promises about future “change” that are not consistent with campaign practices.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
February 5th, 2008 07:10
forget about the fissures in the republican party, look at the cracks in the Apple Valley machine. if they can’t stay on message, who will?
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
February 5th, 2008 07:10
EDIT: i meant democratic party. illegit typo steez.
Posted from: 163.231.6.68
February 5th, 2008 07:19
Let me say up front that I have NOT decided who I will vote for on Super Tuesday within the Democratic Party. I would like to articulate that “movement” is a very large term and has been used by a number of politicians over the years to make their candidacies seem larger than normal political campaigns.
As a matter of fact, I remember another “movement” in 1992 when I jumped for joy in a college dormitory lounge to see that William Jefferson Clinton had been elected President. Sen. Obama is running a campaign that is very similar to Bill Clinton’s campaign of “change” in 1992. I just want to hear more than just the phrase “change”. I want to hear substance. How are folks going to lower my health care costs, cut my taxes, or provide my child the opportunity to afford to go to college?
Also, can someone please tell me why the phrase “Yes, we can” for Sen. Obama? I have a 3.5 year old son and he loves Bob the Builder — that is Bob’s signature line on the show.
Happy Super Tuesday to All, Dennis
Posted from: 205.221.1.253
February 5th, 2008 08:19
i’m only voting for the candidate who promises to make a law that prevents jordan grimstad from telling war stories
Posted from: 205.134.251.132
February 5th, 2008 11:20
[...] NOTE: Babb’s birthday isn’t all that makes this a Super Tuesday. Be sure to participate in VBD’s discussion of the Super Tuesday presidential primaries! [...]
Posted from: 209.181.228.22
February 5th, 2008 12:18
I’m saving my true Campaigning efforts for Switala 2028, with the JuJu/Pwneill ticket, no one can stop us!!!
Posted from: 168.122.84.194
February 5th, 2008 12:59
I voted for Barack Obama, in the Florida primary (not like it mattered….damn you Democratic Party rules). Clinton seems unsincere to me and sure she has experience but she’s also had more opportunity to have that experience serving as a first lady. It especially angered me that after being asked to be judged on her own merits, yet claims the legacy her husband left behind in the most recent presidential debate. I agree with Obama when he said (paraphrasing) that voting for Hilary is a step in the past and people are voting for her because after Bush they wish Bill was back in office. Plus Clinton is too conservative and is relying too much on legal for her social programs (i.e. her health care mandate policy). Laws don’t make change I believe action does. Thus I ended voting for Obama because I agree with his ideals and policies on education, health care and the war in Iraq.
Posted from: 134.84.74.235
February 5th, 2008 13:32
I’ll probably be caucusing for McCain tonight, simply because he’s the only remaining candidate other than maybe Ron Paul who doesn’t do everything in their power to feed my cynicism and desire to be apolitical.
As a libertarian, in at least some sense of the word, I like most of Ron Paul’s policy positions and I like that he’s willing to keep going and investing time and effort in spreading the message despite obviously having no chance of winning. On the other hand, he obviously has no chance of winning. Plus, I’m more than a little confused by the anti-immigration crap he’s been tossing around since the campaign started, which seems utterly inconsistent with his apparent libertarianism. I dunno whether he was playing that issue in places like Iowa in the hopes of getting some early momentum or whether he genuinely believes what he says, but either way that’s a significant strike against him.
Obama is just annoying. So far we know that he likes change, hates George Bush, is in favor of hope, believes deeply in the common man and consequently wants the government to give him more money. Also, he’s black, which makes him cool in that voting for him means you’re not a racist. He’s exactly like JFK: A superficial, charismatic demagogue who knows how to say the right things without actually saying anything.
Clinton strikes me as more in the LBJ mold, personally and policy-wise. She’s much more overtly calculating than Obama, sometimes more than a little clumsily as when she started sporting a Yankees cap approximately 25 minutes after becoming a New York resident, but usually she does it pretty well. In policy terms, she’s obviously done a very good job of casting herself in the traditional welfare-state liberal mold (that’s not meant pejoratively, I just couldn’t think of another term), which in my mind is two strikes against her: (a) She’ll screw up the economy royally, just like Bush has except with massive wasteful social programs instead of massive wasteful military programs and (b) her platform seems way too politically engineered. She doesn’t have one belief that would risk offending the Democratic rank and file. At least she has beliefs, unlike Obama, but whether she came up with any of them herself remains a mystery.
Why Huckabee and Romney suck should be pretty obvious. They’re both trying to sell themselves as social conservatives, which means either they genuinely believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and evolution is just a theory (which Huckabee at least probably does) or they’re lying to pander to people who do. Plus the whole Mormon thing…in principle, at an epistemic level anyway, no worse than any other kind of Christian, but in practice tends to be at least a little more virulent.
So, here’s why I think there’s at least a marginal chance that McCain isn’t as much of an unprincipled lying phony as the rest of the field: He actually has some history of at least seeming to think for himself and break from the party line. He spent a significant part of his senatorial career pushing for campaign finance reform, something that directly undermined his own chances of re-election as a several-term incumbent, alienated large portions of his party, and brought him little to no political gain since no one really cares that much about campaign finance reform, especially in the GOP. He’s run two major, competitive Republican primary campaigns without once making a serious effort to appeal to the Evangelical nuts that could have made the difference for him. And now, despite being heavily reliant on the independent vote both in the primary and (hopefully) the general, he’s stayed very vocally hawkish on Iraq even though that’s the best way to undermine his support among independents. He’s not even playing on that stuff to posture as a political outsider who’s going to take it to those fat cats in Washington and clean things up and crap, at least not to the extent that folks like Obama and Huckabee are. On a policy level, I also like his fiscal conservatism and relative social liberalism.
In the end, the unshakable cynic in me says that who gets elected president doesn’t really matter all that much in terms of changing the future of America or whatever. Mainly it’s a question of who gets to spend four years bitching and who gets to spend four years being annoyed by other people’s bitching. The legislature has the ultimate upper hand anyway, and given the law of averages and the pressures of facing re-election every couple years, they’re just going to end up doing whatever imbecilic thing 51% of the country happens to be in favor of at the moment, then backtrack the moment the winds shift (witness the behavior of pretty much every politician in the country on Iraq). But, point is, if a situation happened to arise in the next four years where the president actually had to show some sort of personal leadership for whatever reason, without the benefit of being led around by the nose by his/her cabinet, chief of staff, press secretary, party secretary and a few thousand pollsters, McCain seems like the candidate who’s most likely to actually rise to the occasion. So, now that I’ve alienated everyone who’s bothered to read this far and painted myself as an angry reactionary curmudgeon, I’ll shut up.
Posted from: 209.181.228.22
February 5th, 2008 13:42
If I were to vote GOP, I’d probably go McCain for a lot of the same reasons Christian is. I just don’t feel that he’s the type of person that really fits into any political mold, which although it’s a benefit, is a bit disconcerning because I don’t know exactly what I’d be supporting in McCain. With Obama, I know that he’s willing to take everything on a case by case basis, and I at least know he falls into a liberal Camp. McCain just confuses me sometimes, which is my biggest objection to him.
Christian, if no one’s been mad at Grimstad for his intriguing, but somewhat pointless post, I doubt you will for actually making a long post without getting off track.
Posted from: 66.108.84.96
February 5th, 2008 13:47
While I disagree with your conclusions about what Senator Clinton will do to the economy, I do think you are right that she is a proven “welfare-state liberal” in the traditional mode. She is far more left than some in the debate community realize.
I am confused, though, Christian — if you are a self-described libertarian, I can’t imagine why you would caucus for anyone OTHER than Ron Paul. He is probably the most principled, true libertarian to ever run for high office.
Back out to hold up some Clinton signs!
Posted from: 136.242.129.93
February 5th, 2008 13:51
Christian, you’re way off base, especially for a self-described “libertarian” – voting for the same man who refused to lower taxes, has, according to his opponents, raised taxes over fifty times, and works diligently to impose new caps and regulations that would crush American industry, and who has never held a job that wasn’t provided to him by the government is distinctly not “libertarian.”
Why Governor Romney “sucks” isn’t patently obvious to the one million + people who have voted for him, and especially not to me. Governor Romney is a social conservative, and you don’t have to look beyond his family picture to realize that — but as man who hasn’t been in politics his entire life (in fact, it’s only been the last couple of years) he hasn’t had to develop cogent political positions, he’s spent most of his life contributing to the economy, not taxing it. He’s come around on abortion — many people do, and he’s spent his life raising his five kids and ten grand children, the idea that he isn’t pro-family and he is somehow “selling himself” as such is wrong in the extreme.
You (and most of the youthful and misguided supporters of Obama, who will be wholly consumed by the Republican noise machine) have bought into the MSM hype — McCain is one of the most despicable characters in contemporary politics, and you don’t even have to look at his policies to conclude that. Every part of his discourse is veiled in the guise of straight talk, he couches his words in the context of “telling you what you don’t want to hear so when I do say other stuff it must be true, right?” nonsense, while spilling lies, distortions, and character attacks against the rest of the field. He colludes politically, he’s mean spirited, and allusions to his “great character” are largely fabrications supported by an MSM too lethargic or in love with his center-leftism to give a damn.
Romney is the only candidate who can bring change to the political culture of Washington (in large part because he has spent no portion of his life in it, he’s rich enough to finance his campaign so he doesn’t have to return time and again, hat in hand to some corporation or wealthy individual for support), he’s the candidate with the experience, vision, and values to do it. He’s done it before, and if people like you only had the courage to investigate and educate for yourselves, you’d make his job (and mine) much easier.
Posted from: 128.83.103.33
February 5th, 2008 13:58
haha ya jon, i obviously meant whitewater. i think rebar does an excellent job point out some of the more substantive issues with hillary, and the only reason i decided to post again is that I find it unbelievably disconcerting how quickly hillary supporters disregard the ethical allegations against her. its as if they just refuse to believe hillary is capable of wrong doing. not a single hillary supporter thinks that the allegations I outline with regard to the cattle options scandal is even worth responding to. if my facts are wrong, let me know, they might be. if there is a clear explanation for the facts let me know, there might be…the bottom line is that she hasn’t been found innocent in this or any of the other long list of scandals she has been involved in. insufficient evidence to prosecute, or inability due to statutes of limitation doesn’t equate to innocence. i mean, for godsake, look at all the laws bush has broken, and he hasn’t been found guilty of a thing. so we can all continue to live in this fictive insulated wonderland where hillary is the princess of the children, but in the rest of america, everyone thinks hillary is a crook. if they don’t yet, they will by the time the republicans get their message out. and quite frankly her conduct in this campaign (and that of her surrogates) has been so reprehensible, that my distrust of her integrity has become even stronger. even if none of the allegations against her are accurate, the bottom line is many, many americans will never vote for her because of the irrecovable perception. she has the highest negatives of any presidential contender, ever. we can either confront this reality now, or we can brush it aside as empty speculation and then confront it in november, when mccain gives his victory speech. the last thing I want to do is spend the next year defending hillary’s ethics, there will be barely enough time and money to defend her hypocristy on foreign policy. and a final note, for those intersted i found this blog post particularly insightful: http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/clintons_iraq_evolution.php
Posted from: 136.242.129.93
February 5th, 2008 13:58
I’m sorry – I also missed your absurd comment about Mormons. I don’t know what you mean when you say it is more virulent — Mormons don’t blow up abortion clinics, we haven’t started any crusades, and typically, people who show up at churches with guns to kill the congregation go to some class of Protestant church.
I’m also more than a little offended that you’d preclude Romney from consideration based on his religion. You’re probably super stoked about the idea of a woman or a black president (let’s talk about virulence…), but a MORMON? Oh no! So much for your love of diversity — only colors and shapes matter here. Not ideas.
Posted from: 134.84.74.235
February 5th, 2008 14:40
Uh…Ryan…did you read the parts of my post that weren’t about your candidate? I think I made it fairly clear that I’m not at all stoked about a woman president or a black president, as evidenced by my claim that people support Obama because voting for a black guy scores them diversity points. As you say, so much for my love of diversity. And I agree with you entirely that intellectual diversity is what’s interesting and important, not racial or gender or whatever other kind of diversity in things that aren’t supposed to matter in the first place.
That said, if we care about ideas and beliefs, we should support people who have true ones as opposed to false ones. Religious beliefs, like political beliefs, are perfectly fair game in an election since, unlike race or gender, (a) they’re things people choose and can change at will and (b) some (namely true ones) are distinctly better than others (namely false ones), even if we don’t all agree on which are which. This probably isn’t the best venue for theological debate, but, IMHO, Christianity is a jumble of indefensible metaphysics, bad epistemology, and unsubstantiated myth to which Mormonism simply adds. My dream would be to have a president who doesn’t think that he has to answer to supernatural entities or base his policy on a WWJD? bracelet, meaning that if I could exclude every candidate presently in the field on the basis of their religious beliefs, I would. Unfortunately, somebody has to be president as per the Constitution, and there aren’t any atheists primed to contend at the moment. So, the best I can do is exclude the candidates whose religious beliefs seem most unreasonable to me. If either major party had a Jewish or a Zoroastrian or a Monophysite candidate in the mix, they’d probably get my vote. When I say that Mormonism is more virulent than other forms of Christianity, I mean that it it requires the acceptance of even more doctrine for no good reason other than a rhetorical appeal to “faith”. I’m sure most Mormons are on the whole good people, just like people who believe false things about any other subject, but that doesn’t mean I want one running the country.
I will concede that I like the fact that Romney comes from the private sector, just as a matter of personal taste and because it probably makes him somewhat more equipped to make economic policy. And I’d certainly rather see him get the nod than Huckabee. But the stuff you say about McCain sounds like it was copy-pasted from the script of these annoying calls I keep getting from an automatic dialer that it’s currently my life’s calling to destroy. You can’t say “John McCain is a scum-sucking, bile-spewing toad because he and his campaign keep saying such mean-spirited things about Governor Romney,” especially when that’s exactly what Romney himself is currently busy saying. Negative campaigning is annoying, sure, and I wish McCain didn’t go in for it, but everyone’s got a log or two in their eye on that front.
Finally, justifying someone’s absurd social policy stances by saying that: “but as man who hasn’t been in politics his entire life (in fact, it’s only been the last couple of years) he hasn’t had to develop cogent political positions” is not the best way to sell me on him as presidential material. Usually, “cogent political positions” are a plus when you’re in charge of the largest political entity in world history.
Posted from: 134.84.74.235
February 5th, 2008 14:48
Jon, as I say, I don’t think Ron Paul’s quite as libertarian as people depict him. The immigration thing is a big problem for me, since that’s one issue that I think is really crystal clear and actually matters for a lot of people. I also am not entirely comfortable with his isolationism–that’s probably a point where I break from the libertarian party line more than he does, but I don’t think it should be a matter of ideology that America doesn’t intervene anywhere for any reason. Finally, even though I generally hate this line of reasoning, I’d sort of like to vote for someone who has a shot of winning, because even though I’d strongly prefer Ron Paul over McCain, I’d almost as strongly prefer McCain over the rest of the field.
Posted from: 165.254.143.3
February 5th, 2008 15:27
I do agree with you that his views on immigration seem a break from the libertarian line — same with his view on abortion, though I suppose that it’s consistent if you start from the assumption that the fetus is a person — but it seems like he’s far, far closer to libertarian views than McCain, who is a fairly “big government” Republican.
.
I was just curious, in any case. You already know who I’m supporting. :o)
Posted from: 165.254.143.3
February 5th, 2008 15:31
Ryan, in regards to the cattle thing, I don’t really know the details of what you are talking about. All you said was that she had an amazing return rate on her original investment. I’m not trying to run away from the argument over her ethics, but it just seems that every time a scandal comes up it’s either a ridiculous invention of the right or the media (Whitewater, “Travelgate”) or something that is not discussed in substance (the cattle thing above). But again, I admittedly don’t really know the details with what you are mentioning, though, so I could be wrong on her about that issue. It wouldn’t outweigh years of consistent, strong support for the Great Society-style policies that I admire.
.
I do know that Obama had represented slumlords and then later claimed to fight for the little guy. I find that a troubling case of questionable ethics. But we’ve already discussed that, loudly, at Emory. :o)
Posted from: 69.134.16.205
February 5th, 2008 17:06
Quick comment to Mrs. Boyd. I think that your appeal to the “educated voter” falls on deaf ears. There are not enough independant voters that are comparing Obama and Clinton. If Clinton wins, most “educated” voters would rather vote for McCain. She is much more polarizing in theory. Its not a matter of what you believe but rather what the people believe, and media attention as well as the way Hillary acts all combine to make her seem super liberal, which turns off many moderates. Yes, McCain, who I believe is going to be the Republican nominee, is also quite conservative but he does not appear to be to the average voter and thus they are more likely to go for McCain. Not only that but McCain can almost directly go for Clinton’s flaws because she will not have an advantage over his record. You appeal to the “intelligent voter” but 99% of the voters are just average. And that average vote goes to McCain. (most moderates as well)
Posted from: 69.134.16.205
February 5th, 2008 17:11
Also, just like Jon noted, the media and Republicans are against Hillary, as are many liberals. If most media outlets are against Hillary, its going to be an uphill battle.
IE Democratic debates “So what you are saying is that you are naive?” If the media is that blatant in the national TELEVISED debates of one of the democratic party noms, imagine what happense when its the actual election
Posted from: 24.6.64.186
February 5th, 2008 17:28
quick question for ryan: if romney doesn’t win the republican nomination which candidate would you vote for? just curious…
Posted from: 67.165.106.132
February 5th, 2008 18:37
major obama selling points: pretty good taste in music, plays basketball, big fan of the wire and nicotine gum.
personally id prefer edwards but that ship has sailed.
hilldawg
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
February 5th, 2008 18:47
Christian, I think that Obama’s record being called into question comes from the lack of understanding of what a “present” vote means. It shows that there’s something either specifically wrong with the bill, or something proceedurally wrong with the bill, and he’d like to fix it. I don’t like Obama because it scores me diversity point (although I think you’re right that people feel that way). I like him because I feel he gets the younger generation. He’s said multiple times that he wants to turn the younger movements like “save darfur” into political movements that will create actual US policy. That’s what I think is his biggest selling point
Posted from: 70.116.31.157
February 5th, 2008 19:38
Michael, not only does Obama play basketball apparently he superstitiously believes that playing basketball on election day helps him win. He was able to play on election day for Iowa and South Carolina, but not for New Hampshire…so apparently he went out of his way to shoot some hoops today.
Now, Jon, obviously we just have to agree to disagree :-) But, i just can’t help but point out that the idea that the Travelgate scandal is a ridiculous invention of the right, is well, in my opinion, simply not true. She indisputably lied under oath to both the GAO and to independent counsel Kenneth Start when she claimed she had no involvement in the firing of the Travel Office staff. The investigation ultimately concluded that she not only was involved, but was the primary motivating factor, and that she had made “factually inaccurate” statements. There just wasn’t enough evidence to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt; perjury is a notably difficult crime to prosecute.
In terms of Obama’s representing Rezko: Clearly, Rezko was a bad guy. But the fact that Obama worked for about five hours on a case involving a low income housing project Rezko was working on with a group of churhes is not at all ethically or legally problematic. The idea that a lawyer is responsible for the ethics of his or her clients is not only silly, its counter the very foundational values of our legal system—that is that all people deserve representation. In terms of the lot that Rezko purchased next to Obamas house, Obama has admitted that this was a mistake in that it created the perception of impropriety, and ultimately bought the lot from Rezko at market value. And lets not forget, Rezko has donated money none other but Bill Clinton.
Finally, in terms of present votes this is just silly. As Pwneill points out many times present votes were used to indicate that a legislator conceptually agreed with a piece of legislation but thought it might be unconstitutional or have been tampered in the amendment process to the point that it was unacceptable. Present votes are also usec to create a perceptual buffer for more moderate legislators who are willing to vote present but not against a controversial bill. This was exactly the case with regard to abortion legislation that Hillary has criticized Obama for voting present. In fact, pro-choice leaders have come out and defended Obama, explaining his present vote was part of a larger pro choice strategy. At least one pro choice leader form Illinois who had endorsed Clinton is now endorsing Obama, because of her disgust at the way the Clinton administration has misled voters about Obama’s record on this issue.
Posted from: 165.123.228.255
February 5th, 2008 20:09
So, I voted a month ago (yay, New Hampshire primary). I had only two qualms with Obama:
1. He parked his bus outside my house for three days, impeding my ability to leave. But I’ll blame that on the bus driver.
2. When he came to visit my mom’s office, he apparently made fun of her to my little sister and my dad as she tried to take a photo. But I’ll blame that on my mother’s inability to use a digital camera.
Sadly, I can’t explain away my problems with Hillary so easily. At the end of the day, I’ll be supporting Obama until the very end, mostly for the reasons Rebar listed in his post.
Other thing: While I love Super Tuesday, nothing quite beats visiting New Hampshire around primary time. Being able to go see any candidate you want, any time you want (and more than that–sometimes they come see you!) is really awesome. It’s an experience I would recommend to all of you, even if I wouldn’t recommend living there all the time :).
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
February 5th, 2008 20:31
“I like him because I feel he gets the younger generation. He’s said multiple times that he wants to turn the younger movements like “save darfur” into political movements that will create actual US policy. That’s what I think is his biggest selling point”
I’m not sure what that means. If you’re just saying that Obama is in favor of young people being involved in politics, then I suppose that sharply distinguishes him from all the candidates in favor of young people being apathetic and disinterested. The “Save Darfur” movement and other like it already are political movements in any sense of the term I can imagine. What I’ve actually heard Obama talk about is stuff like the Peace Corps, which is fine, I suppose (well, not really to me as a libertarian/capitalist, but that’s not the issue), but what does it mean in concrete policy terms? That he’s going to give the Peace Corps some more money? Maybe a good thing, maybe not, but certainly not the big burning policy issue that he needs to be addressing before telling us what he thinks about the economy, national security, et cetera.
Posted from: 160.39.50.108
February 5th, 2008 20:58
I’ll admit: I love so many of Obama’s supporters are against a “dynasty” in politics yet they actively embraced the biggest dynasty of them all, the Family Kennedy. That does make the victory in Massachusetts that much sweeter. :o)
Posted from: 160.39.50.108
February 5th, 2008 21:02
Generally unrelated:
.
At some point, I would be interested in having a discussion here on VBD about the merits (or lack thereof) of caucuses, as opposed to primaries. Caucuses strike as the most incredibly undemocratic system in this country, favoring the wealthy and the non-working young who can afford to miss hours of the day instead of being able to immediately cast a vote.
Posted from: 75.134.142.27
February 5th, 2008 21:07
Jon, I defiantly agree about the caucuses, though I think the MN democrats have got the right idea. You can immediately vote here and an optional meeting follows the voting.
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
February 5th, 2008 21:08
I dunno, in Minnesota at least the Caucuses don’t start until 6 or 7 in the evening, so work isn’t really an issue. Plus, you can still send in absentee votes. Don’t know how it works elsewhere, though.
Posted from: 128.101.49.111
February 5th, 2008 21:18
Sorry Phelan (and anyone who cares), but I will never be able to campaign for the presidency of The United States of America since I was not born in the The United States of America. There’s a slight chance if you become a senator and exercise your Article V rights. More importantly, why would you want to be my running mate anyway? I’m vehemently against the minimum wage and you’re passionate about it. You know me, I don’t need no introduction and…
Posted from: 160.39.50.108
February 5th, 2008 21:54
Christian — simply put, a lot of poorer people have to work evening jobs. I think it’s a huge issue.
.
But it does sound like Minnesota’s system of an immediate vote/absentee vote is good, assuming those votes are weighed equally with the votes of those who stay for the meetings.
Posted from: 75.72.150.58
February 5th, 2008 22:10
I will be voting for Hillary.
I feel like most of the Obama supporters, even in this bastion of intelligence, have failed to justify a vote for him. He’s a good speaker, yes, and he appeals to our generation. But as I said to my brother who caucused for him today, I don’t know that I want someone from my generation leading our country just yet. He is just too inexperienced with actually enacting any change, which is why McCain or Romney (or even Huckabee) could beat him in the general. I think change is needed, but I don’t think Obama can make that change happen right now. It’s nice to say that he supports youth movements, but it’s silly to base a vote on fleeting momentary causes. I think genocide in Darfur is bad too, but it’s certainly not the only issue for the next President to deal with.
I support Hillary because of her record of success, foreign policy agenda and strong position in favor of gay rights.
Posted from: 72.193.59.38
February 5th, 2008 22:41
Experience on Day 1 doesn’t matter, judgement on Day 1 does. She voted for ‘No Child Left Behind’, she voted for the resolution to go to Iraq in war, and then she flipped and voted against funding our soldiers. Now I have a problem with this war, but I think if we had to send them there, we sure as hell should have made sure they had the necessary funding in order to survive. Things like supplies, ammunition, body armor- all of those were included in that funding bill. She doesn’t exhibit good judgement, and I’ve known that since last year, even when I was undecided and very shaky on Obama. Plus, I find her support of her husband’s policy of NAFTA mind wrenching, because that sure as hell hasn’t kept Michigan above water, or the rest of the country for that matter. And then, in November, it comes out that the ‘questions’ she takes at Town Hall meetings are scripted? Come on, this is no leader. Aside from all of that, I find the mandate on healthcare ridiculous. You can’t force people to buy healthcare, that’s a statist mentality which I, even as a liberal, dislike.
I do like Hillary Clinton as an American. I do like her as a public figure. But the fact of the matter is, the issues that matter to people like me are represented by someone else much better. And that is Barack Obama.
Posted from: 160.39.50.108
February 5th, 2008 22:45
A great read: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004163706_fromaharrop05.html — and glad to see it makes an argument I made above!
.
Side notes: Hillary Clinton’s position on NAFTA, like so many of the positions held by so many Democrats on NAFTA, has evolved over time. She is not the proponent of unrestricted free trade that her husband is. Senator Kennedy, whose endorsement Senator Obama coveted so much, also voted for No Child Left Behind. Actually, ninety-one senators in total voted for NCLB. We don’t know how Senator Obama would have voted because he wasn’t in the Senate when the act was passed. The issue is not really NCLB, the issue is the lack of funding for NCLB, and this is an issue which Hillary Clinton — a lifelong advocate for child welfare — was one of the first to tackle.
Posted from: 136.242.129.93
February 6th, 2008 10:37
I may not vote. Better four years of Hillary or that other guy during which the GOP at least has a clear enemy. Two years in we probably get the Congress back, and four years later I think we’re sitting pretty unless either one of them turns into a Republican President. Especially if they get their way on troop withdrawal from Iraq.
Posted from: 169.204.230.202
February 6th, 2008 11:45
i think the hillary = experience to change is bull (no offense). Hillary seems to think change is a specific set of policies, and i hear that echoed in Liz’s post and others. However, this is a gross misunderstanding. The kind of change i think about when i support Obama is rather a mind-set or attitude about american politics. Granted, Hillary does have experience working within the traditional political mechanisms. I don’t care about that. What i do care about is that hillary’s experience is experience in maintaining the status quo relationship of partisan politics, working within accepted channels, and getting favors from other politicians. On the other hand, Obama represents a fundamental change in how we approach politics. I genuinely believe (call me naive) that he will work with both sides of the aisle and get past the disgusting level of polarity that has defined our politics since the 1980′s. I do not want to vote for Hillary in the general election. I believe she will get slaughtered by McCain (especially with independents) and i think the Clinton name is a powerful mobilizer for the GOP. However, i’m not supporting Barack because he’s “electable.” i’m supporting him because he has a chance to actually change the mindset of washington. hillary has no chance of doing this. To me, Barack can and will independent votes because of the lines he crosses. I fear that Hillary will only be the flipside of the Bush whitehouse if she is elected. I will vote for her if she is the democratic nominee, but i am hoping it doesn’t come to that. If (a big if) she manages to win the general election, i see her has a one and done president plagued by the partisanship she used to get elected (much in the same way bush is/was) and a sure ticket for the GOP to regain the whitehouse in 2012. That to me is not change. I fear that if the democrats lose this election, our nation is doomed to even more significant debts and entanglements. Simultaneously, i fear that nominating the wrong candidate could simply continue the status quo. I sincerely hope that enough people are willing to give Barry a chance and he can get nominated. I see no point in electing the ghost of democratic policies/attitudes past (Hillary), nor do i desire a return to Jimmy Carter-esque policy failure. Hillary, if elected, would seem to be the answer to the GOP prayers. a divisive figure to polarize the base and independents around, leading to another republican renaissance.
Posted from: 70.116.31.157
February 6th, 2008 12:30
“Hillary Clinton’s position on NAFTA, like so many of the positions held by so many Democrats on NAFTA, has evolved over time.”
hahah jon. this is an important observation. in fact, usually, hillary’s intellectual development on important issues such as free trade and preemptive war follows an arc perfectly correlated with opinion polls. (And this time it is particularly aggravating b/c she was right to begin with.)
Posted from: 128.101.109.190
February 6th, 2008 14:10
I don’t understand what change Obama wants… He fights partisan politics by running for the DEMOCRATIC nomination. Hillary has a history of working reaching across the aisle. Nothing about the Obama campaign embraces a “new” approach to politics. If he’s going to change the way we do things in Washington, why hasn’t he changed the way we do things in campaigns or the way we talk about politics?
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
February 6th, 2008 14:48
unfortunately our society is unable to accept non-binary points of view, thus we continually have this face-off between the two dominant political parties. Obama is a democrat, nothing about that is particularly needy of change. What does need change is the way politicians interact.
He has changed the campaigns. The debates are far more civil, and the Clintons are the ones putting out all the attack ads, not Obama. If you look at the few instances where he has engaged in politicking, its been a response to charges from the Clintons, and even in those responses he hasn’t stooped to the level that defined say, the Kerry-Bush race. Instead, he’s been respectfully rebutting their allegations and confronting Hillary on policy differences and actual substantive issues.
To me it comes down to this: Obama and Hillary do not have particularly different policy ideas/records. At that point, I don’t understand anyone voting for Hillary since it’s obvious that she’s A. more status quo than him (even if she isn’t THE status quo), B. a polarizing figure for the right who will mobilize general election opposition, C. will have a harder time implementing policy if that’s what its really about (see polarizing issue above), and D. voted for the war before she voted against it.
can someone please explain to me that in light of these facts (i suppose one could contest them) how hillary is the proper nominee?
Posted from: 75.72.158.189
February 6th, 2008 16:43
I haven’t read this whole thread, so forgive me if I’m skipping something really important.
Rebar, can you point me in the direction of one of these disgusting attack ads by the Hillary camp? I also forgot who called the other candidate “Bush-Cheney Light?” Why does that not qualify as an attack? Obama’s entire political strategy is to tie Hillary to the status-quo, which is clearly not her platform: THAT WOULD BE POLITICKING 101. Regardless, to say that someone is “more status quo” as a justification for disliking them is ridiculous. Nominating some cattle to the Supreme Court would be fairly anti-status quo, but probably not a good idea. Apparently Hillary made a lot of money off them, so this might be in her future. And really, can Obama-maniacs just toughen up? The most “virulent comments” from Hillary have been very very mild. Its politics, you’re playing the same game Hillary is but calling it something different. Wake up.
I think Hillary supporters should probably stop accepting the myth that there is very little difference between the candidates, as it seems to be Obama’s biggest push: “don’t worry, I’m just as good as she is but with no political baggage.” That’s just not true. The ideas are similar, their implementation is different. For example, there is a huge difference in health care
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=health+care+obama+clinton&st=nyt
I think the electability issue is still clearly a non-issue. But even if it is important, it doesn’t seem to be an issue that should decide candidate preference, especially when most polls have advantages for Obama/Clinton within margins of error. For all the “this is a tough fight” rhetoric, Obama supporters appear to readily collapse when the challenge of John McCain v. Hillary arises. Seems like a double standard. Yes the conservatives don’t like Hillary, that’s really not that shocking, but do what your overly charismatic leader tells you to do and fight for the good ideas.
On Iraq, Hillary has explained herself only everyday since her vote. When you’re presented with fabricated intelligence, what are you supposed to do? Her judgment wasn’t incorrect, it was right given the wrong circumstances. How can you blame her for that? I don’t think voters will be swayed to McCain because of the Iraq vote, especially when the future policy choices between McCain and any dem are going to be wildly different. Hillary is also more adept at recognizing why the surge strategy isn’t working. She’s the only nominee I’ve heard question the causation of success in al-Anbar (which, is the right answer to explaining why the surge appears to succeed: local support swelled and kicked ass, not the troops). I also think the push of Obama that “When McCain says I voted for the war, I’ll say no,” is a fairly ingenious strategy. I wonder if he’ll have anything else to say, or that will be the end of discussion on the Iraq issue.
But the simplest reason she should be the nominee (so far) is that most democrats want her to be. That may change, but as it stands, she’s winning the party.
Posted from: 66.108.84.96
February 6th, 2008 17:35
Ryan — Barack Obama entered national politics well after the “opinion polls” on many of today’s issues had been settled. I stand by my argument that he is as “political” and “fine-tuned” and “focus group-tested” as any other candidate. Now, I am the first to acknowledge he was right to oppose the war in Iraq. But on plenty of issues that I factor into my decisions about candidates even more strongly — universal health care, marriage-style benefits for gay people, earned income tax credit reform — Clinton was ahead of the opinion polls and many of her colleagues.
.
Regarding the “big if” of a Clinton victory: as I’ve said before, she carried many, many overwhelmingly Republican districts and precincts in New York when she ran here in 2000. New York’s status as a beacon of liberalism is due entirely to New York City and a few smaller areas upstate. This state has many, many deeply Republican areas. She was able to win over a lot of people who were supposed to be dead-set against her, beating the media-driven conventional wisdom that she would only capable be capable of winning “close” elections. Both of her runs ended in landslide victories.
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
February 6th, 2008 17:39
Rebar, granted there were some parts of your posts that I just skimmed, but the only actual argument I see for why Obama is such a change from politics as usual is that he’s not running attack ads or saying nasty things about Hilary. Suppose that’s true. First, that doesn’t really make him all that special. John Edwards ran a fairly positive campaign. So did Fred Thompson on the GOP side. Likewise Rudy Giuliani, at least as far as I’m aware. Positive versus negative campaigning is a strategic decision, and going positive isn’t all that uncommon. When your entire policy platform and campaign message is the chorus from “Kumbaya”, it’s the obvious thing to do. Second, being nice and positive to Hilary does not make him a nice and positive person generally. He’s certainly doing everything he can to play on the infinite wellspring of hatred for Bush and Cheney that bubbles to the surface every time you leave two Democrats together in a room for 30 seconds. He’s not making any effort to bring the neoconservatives or evangelicals into his giant group hug, which, for better or worse, undermines his claim to being a great uniter in a country where those two groups make up a pretty large portion of the voting public.
But putting that aside, I have no idea exactly what you think Obama is going to do once he gets elected. Issue a presidential decree declaring the end of war and hatred everywhere? Give Mitch McConnell a great big hug every time they run into each other? His tenure in Washington as a senator hasn’t convinced too many people to mend their wicked ways (in fact, hasn’t done much of anything at all as far as I can tell), but maybe there’s some presidential power I’m not thinking of that’s key to mindset shift for whatever reason.
The idea that he’ll work with both sides of the isle is pretty patently bunk. If he really believes what he at least hints at believing about Iraq, health care, and so on, he’s in pretty obvious disagreement with most Republicans in Washington. His being president won’t make it any easier for him to change their minds, as far as I can tell. So either he moderates his political stances and fails to deliver on any of the promises he’s making about changing everything he can get his hands on, or he does so by ramming through a lot of very controversial legislation that will make a lot of people very unhappy with him.
Posted from: 71.123.192.89
February 6th, 2008 18:25
I have to admit I was happy about the outcome last night. For the first time in my 20 years in Texas, the primary actually MEANS something. That being said. I an exit poll that Ann Curry did on NBC that 70% of democrats say they would be satisfied with EITHER Clinton or Obama. Compared to the divisive nature of the Repubicans right now – the Democrats are ahead. That being said. When push comes to shove, I think both the democratic candidates are good people who will have similar values an goals as I.
I am going to vote for Hillary because I think my knowledge of her work since I was 13 years old comes to play. She is tried and proven to be about what I think is important.
To be honest – I think the DREAM ticket is Clinton/Obama in THAT order.
Posted from: 70.116.31.157
February 6th, 2008 18:34
I haven’t been able to keep up with this thread so I won’t comment on whatever the current discussion, but I did just stumble on a column that I think is worth sharing. I know I am beating a dead horse, but I am genuinely shocked by how Hillary supporters just claim not to know or not to care when it comes to all the baggage of her past, but when I talk politics with conservative friends and family these are the first and only issues they want to discuss. I used to adamantly defend Hillary against all these allegations just assuming if they were true she wouldn’t have made it to the senate, but then in an attempt to answer my Dad, who is convinced that Hillary is a crook (as I am now), I started to research many of the issues. The fact is that part of the reason Hillary is so incredibly divisive, is that her ethics are extremely dubious. She has a long history of disregarding the truth in favor of political expediency. The column is by William Safire (a Bronx Science alum.) Despite being a very clear conservative he endorsed Bill in 1992. The column is from early 1996 after a memo came out proving Hillary lied under oath multiple times with regard to the firings in the Travel Office.
So if you are interested: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905EFDC1339F93BA35752C0A960958260
Posted from: 75.189.154.195
February 6th, 2008 18:59
I strongly support Hillary Cinton. In those few areas where she and Obama differ on policy, I find her to be overwhelmingly in the right and him to be overwhelmingly in the wrong. This is most prounounced on health care where Hillary offers a plan premised on shared responsibility which also includes many features to control costs that the Obama plan is sorely lacking in. Obama’s plan fails to adequately address the free rider problem and will most likely cause prices to increase significantly as a result. Only Clinton’s plan limits premium payments to a percentage of income, and only it limits the tax exclusion for the high-end portion of very generous plans for those making over $250,000. These measures are extremely important in ensuring that health care is actually affordable for everyone and in ensuring that the method of bearing those costs isn’t regressive. Obama’s attacks from the right on Clinton’s plan are only going to make it more difficult for whoever is elected president to achieve a truly universal solution. Obama claims that we shouldn’t be refighting the battles of the 90s, but that is exactly what he is doing. Only he is doing it from the Republican side. Not exactly the kind of change I am looking for.
On the Iraq issue, Obama has not been a consistent and principled opponent of the war. If you want to know what a consistent and principled opponent of the war looks like you should think of Dennis Kucinich. When Obama was representing ultra liberal Hyde Park in the state senate, and when he was running for the US Senate from liberal leaning Illinois, he shared Kucinich’s position on the war. Since he got to the Senate and set his sights on the White House he has shared Hillary Clinton’s position on the war. Obama even said in 2004 that he wasn’t sure how he would have voted on the war had he been in the Senate at the time. He claims he simply lied at that time because he didn’t want to make the democratic nominees in 2004 look bad. Yet he gave an interview in 2006 where he said the same thing when asked specifically about differences between himself and Hillary Clinton.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/10/30/061030on_onlineonly04?currentPage=3
The truth is that on Obama’s supposedly strongest issue he has done nothing but be guided by politcal considerations. His position on the war has aligned perfectly with his political ambitions at every turn. If you ask me the politics of hope could use a bit less politics and a bit more hope.
Posted from: 66.108.84.96
February 6th, 2008 19:00
I’m uncomfortable taking seriously a column by an archconservative (who, yes, went to Bronx Science, and yes, endorsed Clinton, but more because of his ax to grind with H.W.), particularly one who actually includes, indirectly, the absurd suggestion that Vince Foster’s death was anything other than a suicide. I think it’s insulting to Safire’s intelligence and to the intelligence of his readers.
.
I’m not “claiming” not to know the details about these apparent transgressions. I just really have not seen convincing evidence that makes me question my commitment to her, and this article doesn’t seem to provide evidence. Again, I’m saying there isn’t evidence, but I am saying the evidence isn’t in this article. I think the most potent corruption scandal that’s going to come out in this election is McCain’s involvement in the Keating Five in the late 80s…one of the most corrupt acts in the last thirty years.
.
I’d be interested to hear your take on the article I posted above about the Kennedy endorsements.
Posted from: 128.54.47.6
February 6th, 2008 19:08
im sorry to say that i would almost never vote for or endorse mrs. clinton. if you talk about ‘experience,’ she has about 4 years or so in the senate…. other than that she was the first lady. woohoo, that certainly sounds like a tough job. i mean, comforting a cheating spouse and working with tipper gore on combating the rise of violent rap lyrics must have been so strenuous. i mean, getting universal health care was certainly hard, but she kinda flaked on that earlier…
truth be told, the onyl candidate who actually had real exp was bill richardson.
anyone who likes hilary over obama for exp should reevaluate their political beliefs and read more into real issues.
personally, clinton’s policy towards iran is horrendous and she’s just a shady character. i mean, she ‘lent’ her campaign 5 million dollars. but for some reason this ‘loan’ isn’t considered illegal… she revels in the fact that she gave that money in. i personally don’t think this engendering of old white classism and would heartily vote against clinton.
Personally, i believe in an honest candidate that has stuck with his political beliefs
Cheers to an America that rejects corporatism and lobbyists. I dearly hope that mr. obama is the prez and that edwards is his VP. if clinton gets elected then i pray for the survival of this nation and the world.
Posted from: 160.94.27.145
February 6th, 2008 19:17
Ryan, I find the response from Lloyd Cutler persuasive enough. But that’s probably because I’m already a Hillary supporter. But you should check it out:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9401E0D71E3BF930A35755C0A962958260
Posted from: 70.116.31.157
February 6th, 2008 19:20
Jon, I missed that Kennedy article you posted earlier. I, actually, largely agree with everything it said. The only Kennedy whose endorsement is at all relevant is Ted’s. I could care less what Caroline Kennedy or Maria Shriver have to say. And even Ted’s endorsement didn’t seem to help us much yesterday, as Hillary won in the states he spend most of his time campaigning in and in MA. And in all honesty, I’m not sure Obama should really be playing up the Kennedy comparison as much as he has due the inevitable less than desirable comparisons.Anyways, I particularly agree with the columns concluding thought that political dynasties are an insult to a free people—and so is the underlying insinuation of Hillary’s campaign that she is heir to the throne.
Kamil, why on earth would lending (or giving) money to your own campaign be illegal? Or unethical? That is a bit silly.
Posted from: 70.116.31.157
February 6th, 2008 19:28
The Cutler article is interesting, perhaps the most relevant part is that he wrote it while serving as Counsel to the President. So his objectivity is a bit questionable. It basically just asserts that she is innocent, and carefully tip toes around the facts. These sort of allegations are impossible to prove, but when economists are saying Hillary would either have to be the luckiest person in the world (1/250 million or so chances) or being taking some sort of bribe, I am fairly compelled. Cutler also fails to answer the allegation that she lied multiple times when she was asked about the money. Her story has constantly evolved, initially I think she said it was inheritance. And of course, all the other allegations, cattle options aside still stand. And Jon, Safire never doubts that Foster’s death was a suicide. He points to apparent obstruction of justice involving files in his office in the aftermath of his death.
Posted from: 66.108.84.96
February 6th, 2008 19:40
Kamil, assuming you are not engaging in preemptive prayer :o), you might want to learn a bit more about Senator Clinton’s lifetime of experience in public service which predated her seven (not four) years in the Senate. Her work with the Children’s Defense Fund and the Legal Services Corporation are both good starting points. Her work as the head of the (admittedly failed, but important) Health Care Task Force is also worth noting.
…
Re: funding your own campaign. That’s not uncommon. There are no rules against spending your own money on yourself. Nor, absent public financing of campaigns, should there be.
…
Ryan — Safire’s article was written at the height of the absurd conspiracy theories that the Clintons murdered Vince Foster. His reference to Vince Foster’s suicide as an “apparent suicide,” given the timeframe of this article, leaves little doubt in my mind that he was paying tribute to the bile being produced by some others on the right at the time. But at least we’re in agreement on the lack of an ethical breach on paying for your own campaign.
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
February 6th, 2008 19:45
i got thrashed. christian, hogan, uncle?
like the polls say, i don’t think either candidate is terrible, but i definitely have a preference. clinton/obama would certainly be a more than acceptable ticket.
Posted from: 160.94.27.145
February 6th, 2008 20:45
Yea Cutler may be a little biased, he’s not going to blast Hillary on speculation, but Safire isn’t going to have qualms doing the exact opposite. The point is that no illegal activity was even close to unearthed, and I think speculating that someone has a terrible ethical background with such little information (despite a WSJ projection which is disputed) is pretty unreasonable. Given all the work she has done that is ‘ethical’ and praiseworthy, I don’t know why this destroys her character. More importantly, the fact that Safire can’t identify a quid pro quo is a serious problem. A bribe kind of needs that. Maybe there are other issues that tarnish her character for you (like her evolving story, other rumored scandals), I’m sure there are. But this alone doesn’t seem to be serious enough. Not for me at least.
sorry rebar
Posted from: 67.165.106.132
February 7th, 2008 10:15
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/01/21/obama-the-electable.aspx
hilldawg is not electable. until, apparently, “people stop falling for the ‘but he is so inspiring’ and look at the facts – then they will realize” – whatever that means, I’m sure it will happen before the end of primary season.
and she doesnt watch the wire.
can i also mention how funny (perhaps unintentionally) the line “HOGAN YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER THAN TO RUN EMPIRICS AGAINST THEIS.” was to me
Posted from: 66.108.84.96
February 7th, 2008 10:34
That article is correct that Hillary Clinton ran behind Al Gore, but it also doesn’t mention that both won in considerable landslides. It also doesn’t mention that she lost in heavily Republican Long Island, from which her opponent, Congressman Rick Lazio (apparently the only conservative Republican to ever graduate from Vassar!) hailed, and won. (There remains a great deal of Lazio loyalty on Long Island.)
.
There are probably a lot of things to be said about the high negativity ratings, and Michael’s right to point them out, but I would take that particular reading of the 2000 results with a grain of salt.
Posted from: 66.108.84.96
February 7th, 2008 10:41
Unrelated to Senator Clinton:.
.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/07/romney.campaign/index.html
.
My regrets to Ryan Hamilton. :o(
Posted from: 75.72.158.189
February 7th, 2008 13:58
I love mango. Definitely my favorite moment from the Romney campaign:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDwwAaVmnf4
Posted from: 75.73.219.151
February 7th, 2008 16:47
“can i also mention how funny (perhaps unintentionally) the line “HOGAN YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER THAN TO RUN EMPIRICS AGAINST THEIS.” was to me”
this doesn’t have to do with any PTSD plan does it?
Posted from: 68.98.109.16
February 7th, 2008 17:24
Random takes on great campaign moments:
I have to say that Mitt Romney “who let the dogs out” video is definitely what I’ll remember from his campaign.
Huckabee’s big moment has been the campaigning with Chuck Norris and playing his guitar at campaign engagements. A close second was his Super Tuesday night speech about how this old Razorback might even be willing to get along with the Volunteers and Tigers.
John McCain – his campaign has been marked by starting every speech with “My Friends”. This will make for an interesting 4 years of SOTU addresses. I wonder if he’ll start them with “My Friends and Others”. The moment in his campaign that most marked what he’s doing is when he rejected the title of comeback kid because he was too old to use any adjective before the word kid.
Ron Paul – I love the guy, but he was a deer in the headlights at the GOP debate in South Carolina when discussing the Iran “attack” – whatever happened with that anyway?
Fred Thompson – letting his trophy wife run his campaign and continually changing strategies, then giving a speech in which he stated he didn’t “want” to be president but rather thought he should be president because he was the best qualified candidate.
Tom Tancredo – signing off his emails with “Keep on Tankin”.
Hillary Clinton – having to muzzle her husband in South Carolina; ironically, this works on multiple levels considering his nickname is the “Big Dog”, and the dynamics of their relationship and who is really in charge – then there’s always the great joke about Bill Clinton just being another first lady. But Clinton humor is too easy.
Obama – this guy is hard to make fun of because he hasn’t actually made any policy proposals or done anything; so I’ll just leave it at campaigning with Oprah Winfrey when clearly his target audience wasn’t white middle aged women, who I’d assume are the majority of the watchers of the Oprah Winfrey show.
Posted from: 75.134.159.218
February 7th, 2008 18:52
Am I right in assuming that because the comment I made yesterday says “awaiting moderation” next to it that no one else can see it?
Posted from: 67.87.135.47
February 7th, 2008 19:11
Yes. The last thing I can see that you said was from Tuesday. Super Tuesday.
I don’t have a link to it on hand, but I strongly recommend Nicholas Kristofs article from today’s Times. It addresses the ‘electability’ issue very well. While there may be some fluctuation, there are still more poll numbers pointing to Hillary losing to Mac in a general election, while Obama emerges victorious. Even if the numbers are within the margin of error, there have been several polls with the same general result.
Obama ’08
Posted from: 75.134.159.218
February 7th, 2008 19:23
I tried to post this yesterday but it got caught in a spam filter or something so lets see if it works now.
Oh Hogan.
You say that Hilary is the only Candidate to challenge the causation of success in al-Anbar. I believe the first person to bring this up was Obama in September during a hearing of the Senate Armed Service Committee. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIUej6VJzII
You all should watch that it is awesome ownage.
Also on the attack thing the Bush-Cheney light comment was a way of comparing their foreign policy differences which in my mind is pretty close to accurate at least when compared to Obama’s policies. Lets be serious here Hilary is the only one attacking she has been digging into his Kindergarten records for god sake, Obama has only at worst attacked her on issues. Obama has on numerous occasions praised her as good leader, while she distorts things like his representing Rezko during one of their debates. Even Edwards stepped into to call out Hilary on that one. Thats not even counting the numerous personal attacks like when her South Caroline state chair said this: “”Then everybody else on the ballot is doomed. Every Democratic candidate running on that ticket would lose because he’s black and he’s at the top of the ticket. We’d lose the House, the Senate and the governors and everything.” Or when her campaign purposefully spread the lie that he is Muslim and went to school at a Madrassa(not that it would matter to me) it was clearly an attempt to frighten the American people. http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2007/01/and_so_it_begin.html There is no comparison on this issue he has run a much cleaner campaign .
Finally, most of you are missing the point about what a different kind of politics really means. Sure it means he will work in a more bipartisan way than Hilary, which is already true if you look at their Senate records, but it also means that he will not allow himself to be at the mercy of special interests. Hilary has taken more of their money than any of the Republicans, while Obama has not taken any. In fact he has been exceptionally ethical with his fund raising. After the Rezko charges came out he gave back all of the money Rezko gave him. Again he is clearly a new type of politician and she is just more of the same.
Posted from: 75.134.159.218
February 7th, 2008 19:26
I tried to post again and failed..
Posted from: 66.108.84.96
February 7th, 2008 19:45
Chris — Fixed. I have no idea why that got caught in the spam filter — thanks for the heads up!
.
Do you have a source to show that the Clinton campaign spread that rumor? I mean, clearly someone against Obama — and, I’m sure, in support of Clinton — spread that, but I find it hard to imagine her campaign itself was responsible for that.
Posted from: 75.134.159.218
February 7th, 2008 20:10
The background check was conducted by her researchers.
“Sources said the background check, conducted by researchers connected to Senator Clinton, disclosed details of Mr. Obama’s Muslim past. The sources said the Clinton camp concluded the Illinois Democrat concealed his prior Muslim faith and education.”
http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Obama_2.htm
So she herself did not spread it but it seems she was most likely involved.
Posted from: 75.134.159.218
February 7th, 2008 20:16
I realize insight is a terrible source so I found a better one. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/
Thanks for fixing my post, Jon.
Posted from: 67.87.135.47
February 7th, 2008 20:36
I believe there have also been references made by Robert Johnson, a prominent Hillary-ite, to Hillary being in pulic service while Obama was “doing something in the neighborhood,” which is supposed to be a drug-related personal attack. After Robert Johnson was called out on it, Hillary insisted he was merely discussing Obama’s days as a community organizer. Bull.
http://www.slate.com/id/2182168/entry/0/
Yes, I understand Hillary is not explicitly saying this herself, but she could at least take responsiblity or apologize instead of defending him. This suggests to, me at least, that Hillary either a. is at least tacitly sanctioning these attacks, or b. cannot control her own supporters. Either of which is bad.
Posted from: 70.116.31.157
February 7th, 2008 20:55
This is only one of many example of Hillary surrogates bringing up Obama’s drug use, in a clear attempt to ghettoize him–an attempt to make him conform to the stereotype of irresponsible young black man doing drugs “in the neighborhood.” After Bill Shaheen made his initial reference to his cocaine usage, Mark Penn went on TV and while ostensibly criticizing Shaheen, somehow managed to bring the word cocaine up two or three more times in a transparent attempt to keep the story in the news.
—
I think the most reprehensible example of Hillary’s larger racial strategy is Bill’s comparison of Obama to Jesse Jackson after South Carolina. While there is nothing wrong with Jesse Jackson, his campaigns for the presidency in the 80s were directed primarily at black voters and his message was strongly racial. His white support was in the single digits even in the states he won. Bill’s comment was a clear way of saying, “yes we got our ass kicked in South Carolina, but all it takes to win in this state is to be black, look even fringe candidate Jesse Jackson was able to win here as a black man.” The Clinton campaign hoped that Obama’s success in South Carolina would actually hurt him in subsequent contests if they could portray him as a racial candidate. I find that disgusting, particularly given all the work Obama has done to rise above racial politics, fighting both the perception that he’s not black enough and the perception that he’s too black.
—
And while everyone is on the subject of Hillary’s questionable techniques I should mention that her advertisements have blatantly lied with regard to his comments on Reagan and his stance on abortion, have been very misleading with regard to their differences on health care.
Posted from: 75.210.81.67
February 7th, 2008 21:28
With Hillary and Obama attacking each other so well, the GOP will already have good material ;)
–
On the GOP side, with the race left to Huckabee and McCain, and most likely resulting in a McCain win and a Huckabee VP, and it seems the two of them can’t stop speaking well enough about each other.
–
Question – are there Obama or Clinton supporters here who would not vote for the Democratic general election candidate if their preferred candidate was not on the ticket?
Posted from: 66.108.84.96
February 7th, 2008 21:35
Ryan — Obama admitted drug use. Why is that not fair game? People are criticized for accused drug use all the time. I personally disagree with the Clinton campaign supporters who have brought it up in that I think past drug use shouldn’t really matter, but I don’t see why it’s not fair game. Given how common this kind of political attack is, I don’t see why it has anything to do with “ghettoizing,” especially given that the person who brought it up in the first place is himself a prominent black leader who has done a great deal for the urban poor.
—
I do agree that the portrayal of his Reagan comments was probably not entirely fair, but the reality of being a serious contender for the presidency means that your choice of phrasing — and, in fact, your every action — is going to be examined under a microscope. We’ve learned that a glimpse of mist on a woman’s eye is somehow equivalent to an emotional breakdown. I think that kind of overanalysis, and the insultingly reductionist connected argument — that women voted for Hillary Clinton because they emphasized with a fellow emotionally downtrodden woman — is all pretty bad. But such is the price of being on top.
—
P.S. Not totally related, but I’m so tired of the media portraying Jesse Jackson’s campaign as a “black” one and, accordingly, Obama as the first black candidate with wide appeal. People are buying into this without question. They called Obama the first viable black presidential candidate before he had won even the Iowa Caucus; Jackson had won five primaries in 1984 and five primaries and four caucuses in 1988. His wins included very diverse states *and* very white states: Virginia and Vermont, South Carolina and Michigan. His movement was named the Rainbow Coalition because his campaign sought to unite ALL minorities — racial minorities, economic minorities, ethnic minorities women, gays — and it was nationally viable. He was the frontrunner in the delegate count after defeating Michael Dukakis in the Michigan primaries. The difference, I think, was how the media chose to portray the candidates, and who they chose to embrace.
—
I’ll be the first to say it: shame on Bill Clinton for buying into this historical revisionism and shame on him for referring to Jesse Jackson as a fringe candidate.
Posted from: 75.72.158.189
February 7th, 2008 21:58
Oh my god. I seriously want to stop posting but Theis your awful misinformation is frying my brain. First, Chris, the Clinton campaign did not leak information about the Madrassa. The rumor came from a website run by Rev. Sun Myung Moon, who you should read about. The guy is an absolute bastard and is the head of the ultra-conservative Unification Church. So it comes as absolutely NO surprise to me that, in order to make your baseless claim, you have to resort to Insight Magazine: “The Conservative Current Events Online Magazine published by the UNIFICATION CHURCH” And the CNN report is just citing Insight. The fact that there’s a second source making a terrible mistake does not make it correct. “She was most likely involved,” is absolute crap. You can’t assassinate someone’s character on total speculation from a right-wing nutjob. And Clinton DENOUNCED Robert Fords (SC) comment the day after he said it. You can’t control what everyone says in your campaign, she did what she needed to do there as well.
Bush-Cheney Light was a way of comparing policy differences? Yea, that catch-phrase is a great way of comparing policy differences. It’s a politicking tactic that Obama followers will never admit to. He’s tying her to a platform that is not hers. He gets to make this reference because he said he’ll engage dictators without conditions? And not doing that makes you Bush? That makes you status-quo? That makes no sense at all. And I disagree strongly about meeting with dictators who hate us without conditions. Why give them the upper hand? Why do they get to engage in diplomacy with the strongest country in the world when they’re just being belligerent? It drastically undercuts our ability to influence other nations or show that we’re not pushovers.
And Obama has not just attacked her on issues: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbKMMlhkgOs
“Hillary does not tell the truth.”
“Hillary will say anything, and change nothing.”
“Hillary voted for George Bush’s war.”
Those are all either simplifications or straight up character attacks. I’m sorry, Obama is not above the fray. He has no problem attacking Hillary for being a board member for Walmart, without substantiating any specific ties she had to certain corporate policies.
The Kindergarten essay is taken so out of context. I’ll be the first to admit I find this is a silly, silly, political move, but in all honesty, it answers the argument Obama was making. He (as well as the right-wing) paints Hillary as this woman bent to do anything to fulfill her lifelong goal of being President, but that he has not had longstanding plans to run. The Clinton camp conducted some research, here is the actual Press Release: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4479
Yes, a kindergarten essay is included (although not their primary argument). And yes, that is ridiculous. I know it’s not a damning indictment of him, and I don’t care, but it absolutely contradicts what he said. And if people are going to smear Hillary for being hellbent on getting the nomination since she was out of the womb, then they better be ready to answer the same stupid claims.
Both candidates are fine. I happen to like Hillary. But the Obama camp is absolutely absurd at claiming they are not playing politics when they clearly are. The fact that Obama has not taken money from special interests is also up in the air. He relies on 527s (aka MoveOn, SwiftBoat). http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/us/politics/30donate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Regardless, I would still rather vote for a candidate with policies I agree with, as opposed to one that has taken no money from special interests. I want universal health care. I want someone who has actually planned out her policies, as opposed to someone who is riding his charisma to the White House, with extremely ambiguous policies and rally-energy. Plus, I want Bill back in the White House.
God Chris you are lucky we don’t have practice for a while. I think we’re going to have to call a truce over this, otherwise I might kill you.
Posted from: 75.134.159.218
February 7th, 2008 22:45
Ok Tim Truce we can agree to disagree about the attacks, I listened to the ad you posted and I see it as responding to false attacks not an attack of its own but w/e. I just want to respond to one thing. Obama has not taken money from 527′s they have supported him. He has no control over groups campaigning for him, just as he cant control if a newspaper endorses him.
Posted from: 99.141.132.156
February 14th, 2008 23:31
Just a short note because I just spent forever reading all the comments–
I just must say I *love* it when people vote for Clinton because they want Bill back in the White House.
Isn’t there a constitutional amendment banning running the country for over two terms?!
…
Posted from: 70.87.237.2
January 29th, 2010 22:53
Fioricet….
Buy fioricet online that ships to missouri….
Posted from: 173.212.65.174
September 1st, 2010 08:26
The rising sign, of foreclosure Subprime?Drastic action This, and more straightforward.Coverage is important, lower spine A.Blankets It used Im Ready For You To Prove It To Me Send Me the Free Report Now, casual observation of NSX is finely.Of -, of acacia and.,