Foxfyre
 
  1  
Sat 9 Feb, 2008 12:41 pm
maporsche wrote:
Lola wrote:
I don't want a president McCain.


It won't be so bad Lola.

A moderate republican and a democratic congress.
A fiscal conservative and a social moderate.

McCain in 2008!


Actually, assuming the Democrats retain control of Congress, a "moderate" President McCain is likely to be more beneficial to them that a President Hillary or Obama will be. They will have somebody to blame when the *** hits the fan now and then plus they'll probably be able to pass a lot of the initiatives most important to them.

The former President Clinton with a liberal Congress was so deeply unpopular with the general electorate that the Dems lost both houses of Congress within two years. With the more conservative influence of the GOP majority, Clinton was seen as quite successful at least by his constituency. A very liberal President Carter with a substantial Democrat majority congress was emphatically tossed out after four years and the Dems lost the Senate too for a couple of years.

Both Hillary and Obama are substantially more liberal than Carter was or that most Democrats during the Reagan administration were. If Hillary or Obama had a GOP majority Congress they could divert any blame for screwups or failures there. But with a very liberal Congress they will have to shoulder all responsibility and any blame to be acquired, and I think many policies they are likely to pass will be deeply unpopular with the general electorate.

Politics is a blood sport in this country.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Sat 9 Feb, 2008 01:00 pm
real life wrote:
Why do homosexuals hate Donnie McClurkin for telling his own life's story?

He was a homosexual . Now he's not.

Both were his choice.

I thought you would support choice, but apparently not.


Because he is an apostate of the homosexual orthodoxy.

If homosexuality is a choice then it is a behavior which can be judged as can all choices.

If on the other hand, it is built into the genes of a person, if homosexuals are born, not self-made there is no reasonable basis for judgment of their behavior since it is hard-wired. Most people do not think about concepts of morality when they see a person born without any legs, nor when they see someone who is born a natural athlete.

They do not support choice in this instance because they do not believe choice exists. More importantly, they do not support choice in this instance because to do so opens the door to the judgments that they believe have unfairly excluded them from all the benefits of society.

I'm in no way any expert on genetics and/or homosexuality, but I am inclined to agree that homosexuality, in most cases, is not a choice. I am also inclined to believe that the socialization process during the early development period of a youth exerts an influence on whether or not a person born with the genetic propensity for homosexuality develops along that path. In any case, for the majority of homosexuals their sexual orientation is not, I believe a conscious choice, and is heavily dependent upon their genetic make-up.

There is more to discuss on this subject but I don't want to sidetrack this thread. Look for the new thread I am going to create if you are interested in further discussion.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Sat 9 Feb, 2008 03:09 pm
A person's sexual orientation is one of the many issues that is ordinarily no business of the Federal government. There are a few exceptions that may disqualify homosexuals from entering some Federal service. The social stigma that homosexuals still attract may make them vulnerable to blackmail and may not make them normally suitable for work in the State Department, or with Intelligence agencies. Homosexuality may also excite discord in some military units. These are exceptional cases, and probably should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, rather than legislation, or iron-bound policy.

If two people of the same gender want to "marry", then that is a matter for the individual states to decide. The opinions of Presidential candidates on the matter may sway some segments of the voting public, but detract from the more important considerations of just what sort of character traits the candidates possess, their record of accomplishments, and their competence to full fill the Constitutional duties and responsibilities of being President of the United States.

John McCain has taken flack from the more radical conservative wing of our Party, but ultimately his stance is more in keeping with the Federalist intent of the Founders than popular radio/television commentators. On the other hand, both of the Democratic contenders would apparently like the Federal government to mollify their Gay Rights supporters. This is an issue kept alive by the radical wings of both Parties and is primarily used to pander to one special interest group or another.

What matters is the character, competence, and capability of each contender. Measure them on those standards; not promises that can not be kept without damaging the nation, not on charisma, slick advertising, nor on how closely a candidate appears to agree with you personally on "issues". Lets look for courage, fortitude in adversity, moderation and a practical approach to dealing with the many problems the nation will face over the next 4 years. How many of the "hot-button" issues REALLY should be a concern of the Federal government? Issues come and go, and we can't predict what issues will face the new Administration, so lets make our choices on the what sort of individual the candidate is, not his party, his label, religion, or good looks.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Sat 9 Feb, 2008 03:38 pm
Finn, Asherman --- Excellent posts.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Sat 9 Feb, 2008 03:44 pm
How would you think the mantle of First Lady would sit with Mrs Obama? How does she measure up? Have the glossies and the more serious pundits run the rule over her yet?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Sat 9 Feb, 2008 04:22 pm
She's impressive!

Smart, funny, down-to-earth. Good speaker. Haven't seen anything much negative stuff about her, and have seen a lot of positive. Maureen Dowd complained about Michelle (Mrs. Obama) needling Barack -- the stuff about not picking up his socks, etc. Overall quite positive though so far.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Sat 9 Feb, 2008 04:25 pm
Lola wrote:
To mysteryman......your post disappeared. But here's my response to you:

I wasn't going to say that you don't matter. I welcome your participation if you're not trying to instigate a riot. Here's my posting just two above yours:

Yes, and this is exactly what I was talking about. It's not that Obama didn't have a right to run, it's that I think he made more trouble for all of us, himself included by running in this election. One minority candidate at a time would have been a challenge. There are many situations in life in which we have a right to do something we want to do, but sometimes if we assert that right and act on it, it creates more trouble than it's worth. I'm afraid we've already lost this general election and it's too bad because we were so set up to win it. I'm so disappointed.

I think Obama does have a right. I just think it wasn't wise to exercise it now.


Since we're talking about timing, maybe the problem is that Hillary did not exercise her right to run in the 2004 race and has now missed the boat because very few senators have ever won the presidency when the delayed running until their second senate term.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Sat 9 Feb, 2008 04:26 pm
sozobe wrote:
This went well with blueflame, I'll try it again... :-)

georgeob1 wrote:
As I have indicated before, I have strong suspicions that Obama's wisdom, leadership in adversity, and political abilities don't or won't match his considerable rhetorical skills.


If you're interested, I can provide further information on those subjects. (There is much to be gleaned from his 8 years in the Illinois State Senate and his time in the U.S. Senate so far.)


Please do... again.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Sat 9 Feb, 2008 04:33 pm
McTag wrote:
How would you think the mantle of First Lady would sit with Mrs Obama? How does she measure up? Have the glossies and the more serious pundits run the rule over her yet?


About the only complaint they have of her is that she coincidentally (?) received a salary increase at her place of employment several months after her husband was elected to the Illinois senate.

Other than that, I think she'd make a fantastic First Lady and rolemodel for parents trying to balance family and career. Sometimes I cringe at some of her poor grammatical moments, but they are mostly noticeable when reading the transcripts and not audibly. She's a very genuine person.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Sat 9 Feb, 2008 05:28 pm
Lola wrote:
nimh wrote:
Afterthought on this one:

Lola wrote:
And here we are, at the height of our lives finally at a point where we're in a position to accomplish some of our greatest goals. If you think we're going to sit down and let that opportunity be taken from us by our own children before their time, you are mistaken.


Barack Obama is 46 now.

Bill Clinton was 45 in 1992, when he ran for President.

Do you think Bill, at the time, was "taking that opportunity before his time"?

If not, why is it suddenly an example of "our children [running] before their time" when Obama, at the same age, is running for President?

What would you have said to a 60-year old - like, say, Doug Wilder, who wanted to run as well at the time - telling Bill Clinton in 1992 that he would not "let Bill take that opportunity from us before his time"?

I mean.. yeah, I'm just.. well, I dont understand this argument, at all. I mean, it seems so... unreflective.


Forget it then.


There ya go. That oughta clear it up.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Sat 9 Feb, 2008 06:37 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Finn, Asherman --- Excellent posts.


Thanks

If anyone is interested in this tangent

Gay Identity Politics - "Why Do They Hate Donnie McClurkin?"
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Sat 9 Feb, 2008 06:40 pm
Foxfyre wrote:

Politics is a blood sport in this country.


Yeah, ain't it grand!
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Sat 9 Feb, 2008 06:43 pm
Butrflynet wrote:
Lola wrote:
To mysteryman......your post disappeared. But here's my response to you:

I wasn't going to say that you don't matter. I welcome your participation if you're not trying to instigate a riot. Here's my posting just two above yours:

Yes, and this is exactly what I was talking about. It's not that Obama didn't have a right to run, it's that I think he made more trouble for all of us, himself included by running in this election. One minority candidate at a time would have been a challenge. There are many situations in life in which we have a right to do something we want to do, but sometimes if we assert that right and act on it, it creates more trouble than it's worth. I'm afraid we've already lost this general election and it's too bad because we were so set up to win it. I'm so disappointed.

I think Obama does have a right. I just think it wasn't wise to exercise it now.


Since we're talking about timing, maybe the problem is that Hillary did not exercise her right to run in the 2004 race and has now missed the boat because very few senators have ever won the presidency when the delayed running until their second senate term.


Maybe, but Hillary isn't a maverick. She would have been bucking party tradition back in 2004 as Obama is now.

(She probably also figured she couldn't beat Bush)
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Sat 9 Feb, 2008 06:46 pm
What party tradition is Obama bucking now that Hillary avoided bucking in 2004?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Sat 9 Feb, 2008 06:48 pm
Read a funny story on TNR today - best summarised in an announcement of the story elsewhere: "A mild-mannered law professor is accidentally drafted into being a precinct captain for Obama and hilarity ensues."

Here it is:

Quote:
Raucous Caucus

by Paul Campos

A behind-the-scenes look at one precinct captain's wild night at the Colorado caucus.

Thursday, February 07, 2008

February 1: I email Barack Obama's Colorado campaign site, asking for information on which caucus I should attend. Although I write a syndicated column that often deals with presidential politics, I've never been to a caucus, or for that matter participated in a political campaign. And my lifetime financial contributions to politicians consist of writing a $50 check to John Kerry in the summer of 2004.

But I've taken a liking to Obama, and have decided I should overcome my natural inertia and at least go to the caucus. I originally supported John Edwards, and my enthusiasm for Obama is still rather tepid. I also find the demonization of Hillary Clinton extremely annoying, to the point where I'm sometimes almost tempted to support her instead. Still, Obama's early opposition to the war tips the scales in his favor. It's true the prospect of spending a couple of hours in an elementary school gym--possibly being forced to listen to various lunatics ranting about the 9/11 conspiracy or how we should vote for Ralph Nader--fills me with dread. But I'm willing to take that chance.

February 4: I receive a package from Obama For America. I assume it's just campaign literature so I don't open it until the next morning.

February 5, 8 a.m.: "Dear Paul Campos: As a Precinct Captain you will be playing a crucial role at tonight's caucus. Your training has prepared you for the most common issues that you are likely to encounter, but you can call this number if you run into any unexpected problems." This would seem to merit a phone call. I leave a voice message. Precinct Captain? That sounds like it requires knowing something about what's supposed to happen tonight. Obviously there's been a serious mistake. Please call back.

9 a.m.: No call yet from the Obama triage center. I decide to call a woman identified in the materials as my fellow Precinct Captain. Jill gets back to me within 20 minutes, and to my enormous relief she sounds hyper-competent. She's been training for this for weeks. All I need to do is show up and she'll tell me what to do. Awesome.

4 p.m.: For the first time it occurs to me that my ex-wife will probably be at the caucus. I hope she doesn't bring her boyfriend. I suddenly picture an evening that's a cross between Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail '72 and Curb Your Enthusiasm. Plus, I know she was supporting Richardson. Will a potential Obama vote be lost because of my presence? For a moment I flirt with the idea of calling Jill and telling her that she'll be on her own.

5:45 p.m.: I show up at the elementary school where our precinct, along with a half-dozen others, is scheduled to caucus. The caucus doesn't begin until 7:00 p.m., but already a small line is forming at the registration desk, manned by four harried volunteers. I soon find Jill, who is in the midst of organizing everything with the cool panache of an emergency room nurse (which in fact she is). She hands me stickers, signs, and campaign literature, then directs me to a local Democratic Party official. I half-listen to a bunch of typically legalistic nonsense about what sort of campaigning is and isn't permitted inside versus outside the building, then wander off to our precinct's corner inside the gym.

6:30 p.m.: The gym is already getting crowded. Jill tells me that the line to register is now five persons across and stretching all the way down the hall and out the door. "Last year we had 10 people total," somebody says. I hand out stickers to anyone who looks approachable. I talk about Iraq to anyone not wearing a Hillary button. A woman tells me she's undecided, and that she would like to know more about Obama's health plan. I don't really know anything about this, so in the grand tradition of my legal profession, I start making up some incoherent story about how his plan is both universal and voluntary, before I manage to flag down Jill, who knows this stuff inside and out.

6:45 p.m.: Three middle-aged Hillary supporters are talking about Ann Coulter. "It's sad that someone like her went to Yale Law School," one of them says. "She actually went to Michigan," I tell her. She gives me an annoyed glance, notices my Obama gear, and replies that she's quite sure Coulter went to Yale. "I went to Michigan and she was in my class," I respond. "You're wrong," she says flatly. I walk away speechless. I'm beginning to dislike Hillary more by the minute.

7:00 p.m.: Chaos reigns. There must be close to 1,000 people in the gym, and there are still hundreds waiting to get in. The party has run out of registration cards, and supposedly you can't vote if you don't register for the caucus. I tell people to just write the relevant information on a piece of paper and hand it to me. "Are you sure that's legal?" a man asks. "I'm a law professor, and I can assure you it is," I tell him. Half that statement is actually true.

7:15 p.m.: We have to be out of the building by 9:00 p.m. so the organizers try to start the caucuses, even though people are still trying to get in. I notice that in a sea of hundreds of faces I can't find a single African American. Then I suddenly notice my ex. She's brought our daughter, who is an Obama fanatic. I work my way over to them. She's still undecided. She likes Obama, but doesn't he favor a two-state solution in the Middle East? I grimace involuntarily, and restrain myself from asking if everything always has to come down to whether it's Good For The Jews. I make my pitch, leaning heavily on Hillary's war vote. My ex teaches at a college where many of the kids are minorities from working class backgrounds who have helped pay for school by joining the Reserves. More and more of them are ending up in Iraq.

7:45 p.m.: Our precinct's caucus finally begins. More than 100 people have shown up (the caucus organizers were expecting 30), and our caucus chair asks for a show of hands for each candidate. Obama gets 96 votes, Hillary receives 34, Edwards gets four, and Kucinich one. Three people declare themselves uncommitted. The chair then announces that we have two viable candidates (the caucus rules require a candidate to get at least 15 percent of the vote to remain viable), and asks if anyone would like to speak in support of either one of them. I walk up to the podium and give a rather lame two-minute speech. I say nice things about Hillary, but then insist that Obama will actually end the war. It would probably come across better if I had more faith in what I'm saying.

8:15 p.m.: Our caucus chair apparently intends to allow everyone who wants to speak to get a chance to do so. Several people repeat points that have been made before. Then my ex-wife steps forward to the podium. She gives a genuinely moving speech for Obama about what it's like to teach students who are the first people in their families to go to college. It's by far the best speech of the evening.

8:30 p.m.: Finally, we take the actual vote. Hillary picks up four votes, while Obama remains at 96 and four remain uncommitted. I phone in the results to Obama headquarters, adding to the 79,344 caucusgoers who cast their lot with Obama and contributing 0.12 percent to Obama's two-to-one victory over Clinton. I say goodbye to Jill, my ex-wife, and my daughter, and drive home to discover that Hillary has won half of the national delegates on Super Tuesday. What's with all these middle-aged white women anyway? Of course, if I knew the answer to that question, I'd probably still be married.

Paul Campos is a law professor at the University of Colorado and a syndicated columnist for Scripps Howard.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Sat 9 Feb, 2008 06:56 pm
Lola, thanks for the book recommendation, I will check it out.

Lola wrote:

Does this sound like a system that can be "cleaned up" in the way you're thinking about it by anyone?


Not instantly, and not by any one person, and maybe not completely or perfectly. But I think it could be better and we should try to make it better rather than sitting on our asses on the front porch drinking beer and bitching about how corrupt our leaders are. (That's actually a reference to myself on Saturday nights.)

Quote:
Do you think anyone's hands are perfectly clean as is indicated in the simple outline of Obama's campaign slogan?


No, I don't think anyone's hands are perfectly clean, but that doesn't mean that they are all equivalent. I didn't think Obama's campaign slogan was "vote for me, my hands are completely clean", but maybe I'm not reading you right.

Quote:
What I'd like to know is what's going on.


Me too. Unfortunately, I don't think I ever will know. Not completely, anyway. (Won't stop me from reading everything I can get my hands on, though.)

Man this thread moves fast.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Sat 9 Feb, 2008 07:22 pm
MSNBC calls Nebraska for Obama.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Sat 9 Feb, 2008 07:33 pm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/09/wus509.xml

Quote:
Hillary Clinton's advisers 'in a state of panic'
By Tim Shipman in Washington and Philip Sherwell in Chicago
Last Updated: 12:30am GMT 10/02/2008



Hillary Clinton's most senior advisers are in a state of "panic" about her presidential prospects and are plotting to enlist Democrat leaders in Congress to thwart her rival Barack Obama's ambitions.

The Clinton camp is braced for Mr Obama to win a series of primary elections over the next three weeks, which they fear could hand the Illinois senator unstoppable momentum in the race for the White House.


Hillary Clinton has to win Texas and Ohio
Mr Obama has begun calling those "super delegates" - 795 congressmen and senior party officials who could break a dead heat - who are committed to Mrs Clinton, asking them to change their minds and help him wrap up the nomination.

As of tonight, the two candidates were neck and neck but Mr Obama appeared to be gaining momentum.

"He's saying: 'Hey, I won your state and I won your congressional district, why are you supporting her?'" a Democrat strategist revealed.

The Clinton camp hopes to stop the Obama bandwagon by winning Texas and Ohio primaries on March 4, after which Mrs Clinton is planning to call on party grandees including Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives and Harry Reid, the party's leader in the Senate, to persuade Mr Obama to stand down.

...

A senior Democrat who has discussed Clinton campaign thinking with a member of her inner circle said: "The Clintons are in a state of panic. She has to win both Texas and Ohio."

But he added that this might prove impossible if Mr Obama maintains his momentum and wins most, or all, of the nine contests which come before that.

Mr Obama was expected to do well in primary elections held in Washington state, Louisiana and Nebraska.

He is also favourite to sweep Maryland, Virginia, and Washington DC, which all vote on Tuesday, as well as Wisconsin and Hawaii, where he once lived, on February 19.

Only in Maine is Mrs Clinton confident, though Virginia and Wisconsin may also go her way.

Clinton aides believe that if Mr Obama does not deliver a knock-out blow before March 4, the advantage will swing back to her and she will argue for a deal in which uncommitted super-delegates unite behind her, to preserve party unity.

But the prospect of a deal behind closed doors, that could brush aside the views of voters in the primaries, is already creating fury in the party.

Donna Brazile, an African American strategist, said last week: "If 795 of my colleagues decide this election, I will quit the Democratic Party."

But the Clinton camp fears that a failure to engineer a deal could lead to bitter battles at the Democrat convention in Denver in late August, which could even end with Al Gore, the former vice president, emerging as a compromise candidate.

"There's a five per cent chance of that happening, but that's five percent too high," the Clinton source said.

Mrs Clinton is also under financial pressure.

She claimed that she received $7.5m in donations after admitting lending her campaign $5m last week.

But the source claimed that her campaign is actually in far worse financial trouble than they are letting on.

There will be no proof of how much she raised for three months, when the totals are formally declared to election watchdogs.


0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Sat 9 Feb, 2008 07:33 pm
Obama to win Washington by a huge margin tonight.

Edited: and he does, by 70% of the vote.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Sat 9 Feb, 2008 07:46 pm
Yep, just came here to say CNN just called Washington for Obama.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 468
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 07/26/2025 at 06:24:38