Obama '08?

Clinton said today in Charlotte, North Carolina, that it would be great if the general election were between his wife, Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, and Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona. The vote would involve ``two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country,'' Bill Clinton said.

``People could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics,'' he said.

I am not you OE, so I try not to zero in on one picadillo and make a big deal out of it in order to embarrass or trash somebody.

He does not harbor ill feelings towards our country and he will do what is best for the country or at least try his best.

Foxfyre wrote:

I am not you OE, so I try not to zero in on one picadillo and make a big deal out of it in order to embarrass or trash somebody.

This in a direct answer to a post where I mentioned several of McCains statements that directly reflect on his judgement regarding the war in Iraq...

revel wrote:

He does not harbor ill feelings towards our country and he will do what is best for the country or at least try his best.

That is now a legitimate question, revel, in the case of Obama, and people have reason to consider that very seriously, and in fact that is the one principal reason I will vote for McCain, at least he loves the country. I don't know about the other party.

If I actually like my country, I am certainly not going to hang around people that curse it out, lambast it, criticize it, and possibly even hate it on a somewhat regular basis. And I am sure not going to enlist such people as my heros, mentors, or spiritual advisors.

Fine

if you say so kicky my friend...again i repeat.... time will tell...

If Hillary or Obama were running on a similar platform of military expertise - would you be equally willing to give them the benefit of doubt if they had mixed up Syria and Iran, Shiites and Sunnis, Shiite militia and Al Qaeda?

McCain: The day I meet with the president of Iran will be the day after he announces his country no longer is dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel, the day after they stop exporting these most lethal explosives into Iraq. Just yesterday, up in the Mosul area, they uncovered a cache of weapons, and a lot of it was these Iranian copper, high…most lethal explosives. As you know, there are al Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they're moving back into Iraq. I think Americans should be very angry when we know that Iran is exporting weapons into Iraq that kill Americans. And so all I can say is that I think they continue to be a threat.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

if you say so kicky my friend...again i repeat.... time will tell...

Yes, we are friends, of course we are, this is just a stupid election debate, and we're just jawing here. I love you, man! Maybe not as much as I love Foxfyre, but still, you're way up there.

03.22.08 -- 1:37PM // link | recommend (125)
Goodbye, Cruel Ballot Box

To follow up on the emails I posted last night, it's worth saying that over the last couple months, during each campaign's moments of extremity, we've had supporters of each candidate (probably in roughly equal quantity) writing in and saying they wouldn't be able to vote for the opponent in the general election. In general I just think that people are deeply invested in the campaign (which is a good thing), and in moments of disappointment and frustration need some outlet, even if only expressed within themselves, to put some contemplated action to their angst. Threatening to upset the applecart in November is the most emotionally satisfying way to do that. Certainly too, when a campaign gets this intense and hard fought, there's just too much cognitive dissonance for people to be on the one hand seething at the other candidate and then also contemplating working for and voting for the same person.

So I see most of these promises as the emotional equivalent of things friends or lovers can say in the midst of heated fights -- the vast number of which they recant later and wish they'd never said.

Clearly though there are some people who really do mean it. A very small fraction I think, but there nonetheless. And there's really no better example of emotional infantilism that some people bring to the political process . One can see it in a case like 1968 perhaps or other years where real and important differences separated the candidates -- or in cases where the differences between the parties on key issues were not so great. But that simply is not the case this year. As much as the two campaign have sought to highlight the differences, the two candidates' positions on almost every issue is extremely close. And the differences that do exist pale into insignificance when compared to Sen. McCain's.

That's not to say that these small differences are reasons to choose one of the candidates over the other. But to threaten either to sit the election or vote for McCain or vote for Nader if your candidate doesn't win the nomination shows as clearly as anything that one's ego-investment in one's candidate far outstrips one's interest in public policy and governance. If this really is one's position after calm second-thought, I see no other way to describe it.

--Josh Marshall

I have a question for the people who think this Pastor Wright thing is such a big deal. What exactly do you think is going to happen? Do you think Obama's going to get sworn in as the president and turn to the podium and suddenly start laughing diabolically, burn an American flag right there in the Rose Garden, and start ranting about how stupid all you whities are and how Goddammed racist America deserved 9-11?

Just wondering.

The answer to your question is I don't know what would happen and I don't want to find out. Obama's cozy relationship with racists is a disqualifier, IMHO.

Let's find someone qualified.

I think it is more likely that alot of people will simply stay home.