Moderate Appeal to Democrats: Please Stop this Hillary Nonsense
Have something to say? ADD A NEW POST!
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to the newsletter or RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Pay attention, Democrats: you must abandon this “Hillary Clinton for President” nonsense, and you must do it immediately for your own good. Failure to do so could motivate most of America to turn their back on the official Democratic party, and to stop listening to liberal ideas. Hear me out on this.
We hear so much lately from Republicans about the Great Ronald Reagan. Reagan is ranked by historians to have been an okay president, certainly not great. However, Republicans have been experiencing buyer’s remorse the past few years under George Bush’s follies. I hear Republicans pining for the good old days when Reagan was president, and all Republican presidential candidates are being held up to the “Reagan Standard”.
I am as disappointed to hear Republicans evaluate their candidates against Reagan as I am disappointed to see support for Hillary as president. Ronald Reagan was in his prime in the 80’s. Ronald Reagan in the 90’s would not have been nearly the person he was in the 80’s, and Reagan in the 00’s and beyond would be an embarrassing dinosaur.
I recall that Bill Clinton often evoked ties to John F. Kennedy during his campaign and presidency. How often did we see that five second film where JFK shakes a young Billy’s hand? Bill Clinton obviously propped himself up to an extent by making people believe they were getting another John F. Kennedy. JFK was JFK in the early 60’s. JFK in the 70’s would not have been nearly as spectacular, and would have been an embarrassment in the decades following. It turned out Bill Clinton was Bill Clinton of the 90’s, not another JFK.
I’ve heard it said that George Bush Sr.’s election was due to people liking Reagan, and they thought they were getting more Reagan by electing Bush Sr. Bush Sr. thought people liked him, so he became his own man, his own president. Americans quickly realized they had not gotten more Reagan, and turned away from Bush. Unfortunately, I hear Mitt Romney being described as “Reagan-esque” by many conservatives, and it dismays me that they seem to be voting for their Reagan memories more than Romney’s merits.
I believe Hillary Clinton is running on Bill Clinton’s coattails, and trying to get elected on the promise that if we elect Hillary we will get Bill again. This is deceptive because anyone who has read about the Clintons knows that Hillary wears the pants in their family and Hillary will undoubtedly be Hillary Clinton, not Bill Clinton. She is selling us on the same “two for the price of one” package, but Hillary supporters have to be honest with themselves and admit Bill will be nothing more than a suitcase pimp for Hillary (check wikipedia for that analogy).
Even today, I go to hillaryclinton.com to snag her photo, the only pictures offered in the “Photo” section feature her husband Bill Clinton meeting with people, and Hillary is not in any pictures! Really?! Hillary must have billions of photos featuring her in all sorts of flattering scenes, but instead they choose to exclusively showcase Bill Clinton on Hillary’s presidential website photo section. This communicates even more clearly to me that Hillary is riding on Bill’s coattails.
Hillary’s campaign is a farce because we know she will not be like Bill, despite running with the Bill Clinton play book. We know Hillary by way of numerous described encounters people have had with her. I recommend Dereliction of Duty by retired Colonel Robert “Buzz” Patterson, who carried the nuclear football for Clinton and witnessed firsthand many power-abusing scenes. Hillary Clinton is clearly not the type of person we want as president.
Just as Reagan would not be the great Reagan today, Bill Clinton would not be the great Bill Clinton today. Hillary will not be Bill Clinton, but she wants us to believe she will. We can guess the type of president Hillary will be from the numerous described encounters of people working with Hillary, and this will not be good for America.
Let me put it this way: supporting Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nominee causes moderate, middle-spectrum Americans to wonder about the wisdom of the Democratic party. Hillary Clinton represents a past mess, and we do not want to revisit that past mess. Supporting Hillary Clinton is as sad as when the Republicans ran old Bob Dole for president. These are all old ideas, why not try to present a fresh candidate, and fresh ideas to America?
As a moderate, I view Hillary as a set of tired old ways, and I view Barack Obama as a symbol of fresh ideas in the Democratic party. (And what do you know, when I visit Obama’s website I can find pictures of Obama, not Bill Clinton.) As a moderate, I view John McCain and Rudy Giuliani as a set of tired old ways, and Mitt Romney as a symbol of fresh ideas in the Republican party. Democrats should not try to match a fresh Republican candidate with a stale Democratic candidate; the Democrats will lose every time.
So here I am appealing to Democrats as a moderate voter: please stop this Hillary Clinton for president nonsense, and pick a candidate who represents a new America, a fresh start for our country. Otherwise the Democrat party risks alienating most Americans and creating a vacuum for a new, dominant, liberal party.
What do you think?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Vote:
0 
0 It’s all over now that Chuck has picked Huckabee
Vote:
0 0 Latest national Gallup poll (as of 11/13):
Dems:
Hillary 48%
Obama 21%
Edwards 12%
GOP:
Giuliani 28%
Thompson 19%
McCain 13%
Romney 12%
Huckabee 10%
As a moderate, I am upset to see such a large Clinton lead, and I feel that Obama, Richardson, and even Edwards represent fresher, more ‘American’ candidates.
On the GOP side, it’s anyone’s game, but from an environmentalist point of view I’d like to see McCain in there.
Anyone concerned about the environment knows that McCain is actually a better candidate than most of the Democrats, so my plea to you is to switch parties this year and vote in the GOP primaries!!
Vote:
0 0 I believe the polls show Hillary in the lead because most voters aren’t into the politics of the 2008 race yet, & Clinton is an easily recognizable name. Obama has been gaining traction in early primary states like Iowa, which will bring up his name visibility in the polls.
I listen to progressive talk radio, & the instant polls they take every week show that folks who are already into the political season favor Edwards & Obama, with Kucinich getting lots of support from the radical left contigent of the party. Those Democrats who are political junkies, like me, don’t favor Hillary as a first or even second choice.
That being said, don’t count Hillary out just because of her negative numbers. She’s been fielding political attacks from her opponents for 30 years. She knows how to handle the pressure, and with all of the various books that have been written about her & Bill there’s really no “October surprises” left to blow her out of the race. Remember, she had the same kind of negative numbers when she ran for the Senate in New York. She turned that all around & won the seat, even scaring big bad Rudy from even entering the race against her. She is one tough cookie, when it comes to politics.
Vote:
0 0 Yeah, I know what you mean about being scared out of the race. I mean, Rudy had cancer and all and was leading her in the polls when he dropped out and was replaced by Rick Lazio. Come on….Rudy wasn’t scared out of the race by her. He would have sent her to the bottom of the Hudson River in that election. Please be honest in your assertion about why he got out of the race….pull political punches all you want, but tell the truth.
Vote:
0 0 Hahahaha, Mike. Good one. When you’re honest about your assertions regarding Al Gore, maybe I’ll let up on poor Rudy. Political punches swing both ways, huh?
Vote:
0 0 What the H… are you talking about On hillary.com there are many pictures of her - without her husband. And, who else favors health care as she does?
Vote:
0 0 At hillaryclinton.com, I rollover the top menu links until I find “Newsroom > Photos”, the path is hillaryclinton.com/multimedia/photos
The first set of 20 pics show up of Bill in someone’s living room. I see this time that on the right side there are other categories, clicking on each opens a new gallery, and yes NOW I see other pics of Hillary doing her thing.
I wonder how often they update their pics, perhaps it is a coincidence that Bill-only pics load as the default?
Perhaps not.
Vote:
0 0 I’m underwhelmed by all the candidates in both parties so far. I’ll most likely vote democrat, for all the good that will do in Idaho, regardless of the candidate simply because I think after eight years of Shrub that the dems need to be in power and I fear what a few more republican supreme court justices will do. But that won’t make me happy about the vote as I don’t want Hilary, I think Obama is too inexperience, and the rest (barring a huge upheaval) are already out of the race for the most part.
But if a republican wins I really hope its Rudy or McCain as they are the only two on that side who don’t make me ill to think about being president.
Vote:
0 0 What a joke ooh child…..lol on that. So, you feel it fine to lie about Guliani because I am “lying” about Gore? The Guliani issue is cut and dry….Gore’s is not. There are over 19,000 physical science degreed persons that disagree with his 1700 scientists that signed onto the ICC report he was involved in to get the Nobel Prize.
I read the Ron Paul article Joe put up. With all the garbage floating around amongst all these candidates (and their supporters) it sure begins to make Ron Paul look attractive–if nothing else, to stick it to the establishment that is full of apologists, liars, question planters, etc………
Vote:
0 0 I agree, just like the Democrats deserved their loss in ‘94 and just like the Republicans deserved their loss in ‘96, I think all the big-name candidates deserve to lose in ‘08.
I’m willing to go with an unknown president for four years, if only for the shock value to the big mainstream parties, force them to get a little more real with voters. I’m tired of these manufactured candidates who are more marketing campaign than normal Americans.
Vote:
0 0 Mike, that’s not the only false assertion you’ve made about Gore. If it’s gettin’ too hot in the kitchen, you may consider gettin’ out.
Have a Happy Turkey Day!
Vote:
0 0 Check this story out. It speaks alot to why Republicans lost in 2006 and how they could do so again. It also notes Paul is the only candidate actually talking about eliminating programs.
Vote:
0 0 I think one idea I meant to convey here is that Hillary Clinton represents a poison pill to the majority of Americans.
If Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee, you will instantly lose over half the vote because she is a poison pill. It is sad to see Democrats go for what they think is a safe bet, despite Hillary’s obvious drawbacks. This is like if the Republicans nominated Dick Cheney for the next presidential candidate. Neither of these candidates represent a step forward for America.
It would be more encouraging to see Democrats go for the non-safe bet, go for someone who could be a breath of fresh air for America. That’s why I think Obama has the best chance. Sure he is young and inexperienced, but he also does not carry the baggage which Hillary carries.
Vote:
0 0 “OOh child,” I like the folksy bit (”gettin’”), much like Hilary “cleanin’ house” ha ha. What “lies” did Mike tell about Gore??? So far everything he has said about Gore has been correct…..cites, please!
Vote:
0 0 It’s okay Babs. I have resigned myself to the fact that like many others who cite Gore’s short comings and lies to gain political and economic support that we will be called every name in the book and be an evil hate monger that is intent on destroying the planet. It is to be expected. That is all they have got is name calling and junk science that is no where close to being conclusive. They don’t want a debate–they want their views accepted without dissent. Can I use a bumper sticker slogan? “Question Authority”……since when did it become a problem to do that….if they can’t handle that perhaps they are the ones that should get out of the kitchen.
Vote:
0 0 Since when has pointing out your false claims about Al Gore become name-calling & hate mongering? Don’t blow my reaction out of proportion, Mike. If you continue to throw out the standard Fox News-type smears about Al Gore, don’t expect me not to call you out about it.
For instance:
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
Now, how about getting back on topic?
I still think that the negatives Hillary is experiencing are to be expected for a front-runner & a Clinton. She’s handled them before. She can handle them again, if no one can best her in the debates coming up.
The Democrats have one thing one their side that the Republicans don’t have yet: a belief that any one of their candidates is better than any of the Republican guys. So many Republicans have at least one guy they absolutely detest above all others. They are fractured & eating their own at this point.
Vote:
0 0 “I took the initiative in creating the internet”
vs.
“I invented the internet”.
Honestly, I truly don’t see a difference. His actual quote, above, is somehow worse because he uses “bigger” language.
Vote:
0 0 Where in this thread did I impugn the honorable Mr. Gore about creating the internet? As for calling each other “out” on the topic that is exactly what your crowd of environmentalists won’t stand for. Any dissent is labeled as uninformed stupidity and dangerous to the planet’s surival. You guys don’t want debate….you want political and economic power at the expense of the rest of us who are just supposed to shut up and go along with global warming alarmists. I am not calling you out on anything. This AIN’T about you sister! It’s about the science that deserves debate and a more clear understanding rather than soundbites about the Internet which has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.
Many politicians mentioned in this thread–like the good Mrs. Clinton–want to fool us into buying into alarmism so they can take more of our money, our way of life and our freedoms away. Politicians want to take our guns away because some nut job kills 32 at Virginia Tech. They want to confiscate our property to make way for shopping malls in the name of the public interest (i.e. tax revenue).
As for your assertion that, ” The Democrats have one thing one their side that the Republicans don’t have yet: a belief that any one of their candidates is better than any of the Republican guys. So many Republicans have at least one guy they absolutely detest above all others. They are fractured & eating their own at this point.”
That is baloney…both sides are eating their own right now. If you bothered taking the time to talk to a Republican (as opposed to bashing them) you would understand that Republicans also think any of their candidates are better than Hillary. Both sides see it the same way. Your assertion above is nothing more than the same type of liberal blatther devoid of substance to bolster your point and your candidate. Thanks but no thanks on your take here. The simple point here is–why not try for some objectivity and analysis of the entire spectrum out there rather than a narrow minded liberal view? Is that too much to ask…………only time (and the next post will tell).
Vote:
0 0 Mike, the liberties you take in assuming my political stance are too numerous to counter at one time, but that’s a good debate tactic, right? Throw out a bunch of generalities & hope some stick.
You have no idea what Republicans I talk to, yet you assume they believe their candidates are better than Hillary. Aside from the obvious difference between your assertion & mine, you ignore the section of conservatives who absolutely refuse to vote for Giuliani. Then there’s the religious-right Republicans who refuse to vote for Romney ’cause he’s not a real Christian. Then you have the section frightened by the illegal immigrant population who refuse to vote for Huckabee. You also have the WOT propagandists who positively detest McCain & will do anything to discredit his war credentials.
The Democrats have no problem supporting whoever gets the nomination. There’s no internal organized opposition against any of our candidates. I’m not supporting Hillary in the primaries, but I’ll have no qualms in voting for her, should she succeed.
As far as your personal problems with Al Gore, those are many & memorialized in quite a few threads around here. I’m certainly not going to track down every one of your exaggerations, I just pulled the latest as an example. Babs was actually the one who asked for cites, so get on her case for bringing it up.
As far as cites go, care to show where I have ever called you names or wished hatred upon you? Or are you going to ignore that pesky evidence again? Care to show me where I have called you stupid or dangerous? These are claims you’re making, remember. Just like some of your other false claims that I’ve shown you make, are you going to just slide by again with these & hope no one notices?
Vote:
0 0 We all need to relax here. This is nothing new here. We all know that Mike likes to “blow things out of proportion” occasionally to stir up the pot. But the real problem here is with the hard core Democrats like Oooh child. Instead of voting for the best candidate from either party, they’d rather vote for the worst Democrat just so long as their Democrat. Therin lies the problem.
but thats just my opinion. now can’t we just all get along?
Vote:
0 0 And that was my original point with Hillary. I do not think she represents anywhere near the best of what the Democratic party has to offer, and I am dismayed to see her have so much support. Why are dems supporting her so much when she clearly represents such a poison pill? To support Hillary is like those poor folks still stuck on trying to elect Al Gore.
Our country has moved on, it’s a different time now, let’s see something fresh and exciting in your candidate, a breath of fresh air, a new direction. Hillary is none of these things.
Vote:
0 0 Um, “Child”, I was asking YOU for cites to where Mike had told lies or half-truths about Gore. If you aren’t able to provide the same, you probably shouldn’t have made that accusation…….
Vote:
0 0 Excellent Post 007. You are correct, I am a pot stirer–just not a pot smoker! lol
Joe, your observation was also dead on target. Hillary is an establishment candidate for more of the same…just like McCain is. Both parties are screwing us over royally and we need to wake up and throw a nice little revolt at the ballot box to take the country back and throw the bums out that have screwed things up for way too long.
Vote:
0 0 Which is why, right now I am leaning toward Obama — of course, that is subject to change. He hasn’t really had enough time in politics to get too corrupted. I’m trying to learn more about Ron Paul. As much as I hate to admit it, he was almost a complete unknown to me until just a short while ago. I can’t bring myself to support Romney, I’m afraid he would have too many outside influences. McCain appears to me to be too old and too tired to stand up under the challenge. Come to think of it, I’ve got something against everyone that is running. Maybe a “wild card” will appear on the horizon in the near future. Do you suppose that was Paul?
Vote:
0 0 Recent poll shows Hillary would lose to all Republican candidates.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071126191523.oorozvs5&show_article=1
Democrats, please do not support Hillary anymore.
Vote:
0 0 It is amazing that with such high negatives in place already that the Democrats are still willing to nominate her. This reminds me of times when the lunatic left took over the Democratic Party (before Bill Clinton’s more moderate followers took it back). We had the likes of George McGovern, Tom Eagleton, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Mike Dukakis, and even our good buddy John Kerry. What a bunch of losers! haha
Just goes to show that the movers and shakers who probably don’t know the cost of a loaf of bread or a gallon of milk are darn determined to push her on the American People no matter what. This bodes well for Republicans and not just the presidency, but in the 23 Senate seats they have to defend next year.
Vote:
0 0 It looks like this Hillary for president nonsense may finally be near the end, with Hillary coming in 3rd place in the Iowa Caucuses yesterday.
http://www.kidk.com/news/13026572.html
I was disappointed to see Huckabee win so big, I’ve heard a lot of negative things about him lately, I think Mitt Romney is the strongest and best candidate among Republicans but he did not do so well.
Vote:
0 0 I’ll take Huckabee over Romney any day. And how about Obama winning on the Democratic side? I bet Hillary woke up this morning in a foul mood. Poor Bill! lol
Vote:
0 0 Romney needs the win in NH. He’s a smart, well-spoken guy. He just needs to lose the polished look and get more “folksy” like Huckabee. Huckabee has no substance. He’s a “feel-good” candidate without much backbone. Someone you would like to live next door to, but not have as the President of our country. I don’t care how much Medved tries to spin it, Huckabee’s comments about the Morman religion were exactly what he wanted to say. As a Baptist minister he probably knows more about Morman doctrine than Mormans do themselves!
Vote:
0 0 Here we go with the religous talk. I would love to respond, but why bother when I know my comments will only be edited by “big brother”. don’t wanna loose any visitors to the site by having an intelligent conversation about said topic and how it relates to the presidential candidates.
(love the censorship on this site!)
Vote:
0 0 I was thinking we should discuss ways to possibly reintroduce religious discussions at IFz, but I’ve got a full plate now so in a few months we will do that (which will be nearly a year since we banned it, so it seems appropriate to bring up the topic and try reintroducing the subject).
I hope these candidates can be discussed without going into too much religion. How about setting some boundaries? Let’s not get into which candidate has the right religion, or which candidate will take orders from their religion, or if a candidate is right or wrong to believe in a particular religion.
Go ahead and talk about a candidate who bashes another candidate’s religion, because that reveals the candidate’s character. I’ll try to only edit the comments that venture into the former, and leave alone the latter.
Sound fair for now?
Vote:
0 0 The Iowa caucus’ were dominated by far left and right wingers. It won’t mean much down the road as more independents and moderates weigh in later in the year. Obama and Huckabee will be eaten up. I expect that Hillary and Romney will get the nod from middle of the road voters that will sway the nomination process beyond the early fringe of each party.
Vote:
0 0 I think it’s pretty difficult to have a discussion board these days without the issue of religion being a topic for two reasons: some of the presidential candidates are so prominently regligious and religious rights dominate the headlines.
It has been my experience that when a person can’t back his debate with reason and intelligence he tends to fall back on name calling and then it no longer becomes a discussion or debate.
Vote:
0 0 ditto to Mike; the race is far from over; I was pleased to see Obama do as well as he did, however;
Joe, I think you have the right idea re: religious discussions….as far as the allegations of “censorship,” isn’t their a separate “religious discussion” website available? I have seen links to it here….
Vote:
0 0 Babs….the problem is, you can’t talk about the presidental candidates without including religion. We all know there’s a seperate religious site. There are just too many issues right now involving the presidential candidates that should include discussions of religion.
Hopefully Joe will bring back talks of religion. Nobody bothers to visit that other site, just so they can talk religious talk.
Joe, can you give us an idea of the monthly numbers regarding visitors/posters at that other site?
Vote:
0 0 Guest_007: I don’t track anything at that other site so I don’t know the visitor numbers. Judging by the few comments there I imagine it to be low.
I cannot find it now, but I read an article analyzing the vote counts in New Hampshire, and they discovered that Hillary won the precincts using Diebold voting machines by nearly the exact percentage (to the third decimal place) as Obama won over Hillary in the precincts using hand ballots.
So if Obama beat Hillary say 53.123% to 43.123% in hand counted precincts, Hillary was found to have beaten Obama by 43.123% to 53.123% in machine precincts. So the allegation is that Hillary did not win that primary, that the Diebold machines are either malfunctioning or (conspiracy alert) Diebold executives want Hillary to win cuz they are Republicans and … I don’t follow that part out, but I thought the numbers flip was interesting.
Vote:
0 0 Here is another lovely reason to oppose Clinton…..mandatory payroll deductions to pay for Universal Health Care! How much more will they take from us?
Vote:
0 0 Have you heard this overblown faux-puritan nonsense over an MSNBC commentator saying Hillary Clinton was “pimping out” Chelsea? Hillary got in a huff and is saying she won’t do the MSNBC debate, so MSNBC lost their journalistic spine and suspended the guy while apologizing.
The term “pimping out” has become a common cultural phrase meaning putting to work in a cheap fashion, I don’t think anyone believes it was about forcing Chelsea into prostitution.
The description was accurate. Every politician “pimps” their family out to stump for them on the campaign trail. Some people call it marketing and some people call it pimping.
Hillary getting bent out of shape over that comment illustrates Hillary’s misplaced sense of outrage and priorities.
Vote:
0 0 obama is a race hustler like al sharpton and jesse jackson who started his career as a lawyer for public housing within the ghetto of chicago’s southside. that fact that idaho voted for obama proves how disconneted idaho is from the rampant crime and degeneracy that plagues the inner cities of the eastern united states.
white men voted for obama because they have college degrees and still can’t get a job but that is caused by affirmative action and obama wants more of it.
the hatred towards white women like hillary is going to backfire and either cause mccain to win who isn’t a war “hero” simnply because he spent time in a vietamese prison camp who will bankrupt our country because his kind are sick with delusions that islamofacism is a problem for america when the fact is affirmative action and unmitigated immigration from latin america is causing college grads to remain unemployed.
if obama wins we will become bankrupt by increased affirmative action and billions spent for slave reparations which almost NO americans had anything to do with. you will pay billions for slave reparations even if your ancestors fought to free slaves.
hillary is the only reasonable solution for america. obama with all his upbeat motivational speaking belongs on some wrestling show not in the white house. obama is a silly media fraud who gets positive media coverage without even paying for it. there is a media bias for obama and against hillary so this is proof blacks benefit from affirmative action but white women don’t.
Vote:
0 0 That is the dumbest thing I’ve heard in a long time. You are one of those folks who always have an excuse for your own failures, don’t you? Blame other races when you cannot get a job or live the life you want? Sound like the same tune you’ve played all your life?
“that fact that idaho voted for obama proves how disconneted idaho is from the rampant crime and degeneracy that plagues the inner cities of the eastern united states.”
Idaho voting for Obama over Hillary (here in rabid Anti-Clinton land) somehow proves we don’t understand eastern U.S. inner cities have rampant crime and degeneracy?
“white men voted for obama because they have college degrees and still can’t get a job but that is caused by affirmative action and obama wants more of it.”
First, that does not make logical sense. Second, you ever hear of the term “over-generalization”? It pretty much means you are slapping your ridiculously infantile one line answer onto something you disagree with to explain why things didn’t go the way you wanted. It also fits into your larger pattern of making excuses in your life instead of making changes.
I just searched and reviewed all your other comments at IFz, and every single one of them is filled with the same racially hostile and incendiary comments. If you want to continue chatting here I ask you to stop the racial baiting, it is against our community discussion rules.
Vote:
0 0 you comment is proof that obama is a sacred cow who can’t be criticized because of his race yet people like you are always criticising other races by calling them “islamofacists” which means you hate middle eastern people who aren’t subservient to the wall street diamond dealers.
obama will costs america BILLIONS in slave reparations and you don’t want anyone to talk about this because you don’t support free speech yet you claim some “terrorist” hates our freedoms. i don’t see any “terrorist” in the middle east trying to prevent the truth about obama being spoken about.
Vote:
0 0 Oh brother, that does not even deserve a response. Do you have a job? Do you have a girlfriend? Have you ever visited a foreign country? I think you need to expand your worldly experiences a little bit. But again I have to warn you any more of these racist comments and I will delete them and ban you.
Vote:
0 0 I still think dguy is one of the Westboro Baptist types that has incendiary language for any topic just to tick people off. Can you say devils advocate to the extreme?
Vote:
0 0 Has anyone heard the Obama campaign mention slavery or affirmative action once? Back your claims up, sir. The truth is that the Clinton machine is more left of center than Obama when it comes to federal aid for the poor and minorities. Hahaha, I bet Obama hasn’t “kicked it with the homies” in his life - but he is the most intelligent candidate out there, which should count for something in my opinion.
Vote:
0 0 Another thing with Hillary, what’s with this stupid “superdelegates” scam that the Democratic party cooked up? As I understand it so far, they have a few well-connected party hacks who get to change their votes and ignore the voting results of their district?
Doesn’t this seem like a rigged system? The person with the most party connections (Hillary) could rig a win out from under the popularly-selected candidate (Obama)?
Since 2000 Democrats have hollered about George Bush stealing the election, then they try this trick?
Vote:
0 0 The Democrats did not “cook-up” the super delegate scam. The same tactic was used in the Bush/Gore election. I think the Republicans used it first. But whoever used it first, I don’t like it, but I don’t know what to do about it either. Katie Couric ran a newsbrief on it the other night.
Vote:
0 0 if the public can’t criticize obama now lest they be silenced as a “racist” you can only imagine how bad it will be if he is president.
i see obama as a typical hustler who like that reporter fraud at the NY Times(jason whatever-his-name-was) will be supported and helped by so many people at all costs to make him succeed at a job he isn’t qualified to do only to make some huge mistake.
unlike battle-tested hillary who has been criticized for at least 15 years, obama will sweat or melt if he is under pressure once people decide not to treat him with kids gloves anymore and demand he function effectively to benefit more than just his friends who will emerge to be seen if he gets elected.
idaho won’t vote for him anyway since it is a red state so don’t get your hopes up because these republicans are going to turn the heat up on him and he is going to melt like plastic and all his motivational speaker antics won’t help him and those tactics will be relegated back to into the realm of worldwide wrestling shows which is where they belong and probably came from.
all the media is for obama so it’s no surprise that writers for this site, which is affiliated with a tv station, are too.
Vote:
0 0 “Has anyone heard the Obama campaign mention slavery or affirmative action once…”
the obama campaign handlers aren’t going to mention this because they want to win but wait until he makes it and then we are going to see lots of talk about affirmative action & mass reparations $$$ from obama.
the clintons support affirmative action based on need which is what low income idahoans need so just because obama is “fresh” doesn’t mean he has any fresh ideas and is instead another run of the mill 1960s-styled motivational speaker relic who will only help his friends once he gets into office. what has he ever proposed that will benefit idaho? obama is to progressive liberals what bush was to religious conservative–people imagine he has something for them but once in office he will do nothing for them.
Vote:
0 0 CNN is actually pro-Hillary. It’s their polls that are claiming superdelegates will vote for Hillary. Many of these superdelegates have come out publicly saying they will not cast their vote against the popular vote. Which means, if Obama wins the popular vote, these superdelegates who pledged Clinton back in November will indeed change as well. Then why, pray tell, does CNN continue to assign these delegates to Hillary? It’s misleading, and a blatant attempt to trick lesser informed voters.
Vote:
0 0 all the media is for obama so it’s no surprise that writers for this site, which is affiliated with a tv station, are too.
Oh brother. Please let me know what TV station this site is affiliated with?
And by the way, every politician gets their friends jobs, no matter what party. You must be politically naive if you think Hillary will be the first exception.
Vote:
0 0 I agree, most of the comments of ‘dguy’ have been very over generalized, antagonistic, and harshly devil’s advocate. Like schorz on the online version of the PR, it seems, does someone pay this person to be so deliberately foul that everyone reacts in protest?
I was a Hillary supporter forever, and was angy that Obama didn’t get in line with her…but having seen her campaign tactics, and having seen Obama be just a wee bit more civil than she has been, I’ve switched my allegiance to Obama in this last month.
I was at the caucus, voted for Obama. Time will tell, but right now the race (for me) is his to lose.
Vote:
0 0 Gee, it’s Cheese Head Time. I guess I lost touch and didn’t realize that Wisconsin was the next round in the matchup between Hillary & Obama. Tonight, I’ve been reading that Hillary is supposed running some real negative ads against Obama there in Cheese Head Country.
I’m quite surprised to hear that. So far, I’ve only visited maybe a half dozen news feeds–but, so far, they all seem to be saying the same thing–Hillary’s playing the negative card there in Wisconsin.
I’d like to flashback to March 1968. That’s when I had my first real “body politic” experience. I signed up on campus to go campaign for Eugene McCarthy in the Wisconsin primary that year. I was sent to Kaukauna–you know, where they make the cheese spread. The community gave us a floor to sleep on in some old decrepit downtown building. Some big Bubba came in and said, “You can eat all you want, as long as it’s Kaukauna Cheese!” I eat so much of that cheese that week, it took me years to ever want to even sniff the stuff again.
So they turned me loose in some neighborhood. I was the proverbial snot nose kid–sum dum ass from sum college town. I’d go knock on doors and try to convince people to vote for Eugene. Trouble was that every third door I’d hear this shout from the inside, “COME ON IN!” And I’d open the door and it was a fricking BAR! And these neighborhood alkies would be hittin’ me up and saying, “You gotta have a beer.” I didn’t realize about one-third of the houses in that city held official liquor licenses! Well, after a couple of days of this, I succumbed and I just started knocking on doors and listening for the “COME ON IN” shout and I’d go in and start pounding beers with the best of them. By gawd, we’d be back-slappin’ and doing high fives and pretty soon every where I went people would be smiling their red-faced alkie smiles and pumping a fist with “VOTE GENE!”
And by gawd, we won that danged town 85-15! I learned a lot about populist politics way back when almost 40 years ago. I learned people vote people–they don’t give a dang about radio, TV and newspapers. They vote their conscience and their heart–ESPECIALLY in Wisconsin. Those Cheese Heads ain’t no fools–they are sum smart cookies! If you drank as much beer as they do, you’d be real smart, too!
So, I reckon that, if true, Hillary’s running of negative ads is going to backfire there in Wisconsin. If it’s true what she is doing, it shows she is in total disconnect mode. That line of bull ain’t gonna sell in Cheese Head Country. Those people are WAY too smart for that s**t. They all “been there, done that” and they ain’t no fools.
I can hardly wait to see the Tuesday results. There’s only two outcomes: it will confirm what I think I know or it will make me look like an idiot. Sum choice, huh?
Cheers, Monte.
Vote:
0 0 Hey, Groovey Tuesday! Another Tuesday, another primary. Well, as noted above, I had an opinion. I am gratified to see these 9 p.m. results via Voice of America’s website:
“Early results showed Obama leading his rival - New York Senator Hillary Clinton - by more than 10 percentage points.”
Those voters in Cheese Head Country ain’t no dumb s**ts. Negative campaigning didn’t sell–it never really has sold well there.
At least I didn’t wind up looking like the Village Idiot! (Although I’m sure I have resembled the VI in various other posts here on various other topics.)
Cheers, Monte
Vote:
0 0 It was really amazing to see how the coverage shaped up last night. McCain came out and made a 15-20 minute speech that was fully broadcase. Huckabee didn’t get covered. Clinton started her remarks and it was dull….the Fox News Channel went to a split screen with Obama while Clinton still spoke….still dull….guess what, they switched over to Obama for 45 minutes of uninterrupted air time and cut Clinton out completely.
I have to admit it was a nice speech. There are so many things that sounded great in his speech. However, if you take a calculator to his remarks it adds up to over 850 billion in costs. The second thing is that his programs make us more dependent on the government rather than less dependent. Obama reminds me of FDR–big government spending. He also didn’t advocate for nuclear energy last night either. He mentioned biofuels, ethanol, wind power, geothermal….all the fuzzy green technologies, but nothing on nuclear. That doesn’t help this area very much. One tank of ethanol takes as much corn as normally one person eats in a year….I wonder why food prices are shooting up? hmmm…..
People had not only better stop the Hillary Nonsense….they had better start understanding the Obama Nonsense and the laws of unintended consequences when politicians get the government deeper into our lives, our wallets, and our moral choices. Some will say criticizing Obama means one is racist…..I say that failing to criticize this ‘rock star’ is failing to recognize how dangerous he really is. He is a crafty man….he is saying all the right things to all groups of people. Does anyone have a pang in their gut that this guy sounds too good to be true? Remember that old adage, “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”
Vote:
0 0 I’d vote for Obama over Hillary any day. He’s a smart man and i think he’d get things done in office.
Vote:
0 0 I certainly can believe that Fox cut out Hillary. There’s no more controlling way to show you’re not really interested in fair and balanced coverage than to keep someone off the air, and leave their voice unheard.
45 minutes of Obama? I’d vote for him, I think, but I don’t know that I’d want to hear a 45 minute speech vs McCain’s 15-20 minutes (and Huckabee got nothing? That was odd).
And I agree about ethanol. What a waste of food products, for little gain (except for the corn farmers). Almost no green impact there at all.
I was always anti-nuclear, mostly because I don’t think the waste products storage issue has been resolved. But I’m starting to bend a little because I’d like to see more bang for my buck (no pun intended).
I don’t see a whole lot of difference in any of the politicians, they’re becoming less distinct from each other as time goes by.
Vote:
0 0 It wasn’t just Fox that cut her out….CNN did the same thing too. Heck, if I was the producer and had to listen to her shrill voice and dull speech, I would have cut to Obama too.
Vote:
0 0 That’s interesting, my brother says that fact alone (shrill voice, etc) will be the reason a lot of men won’t vote for her. They don’t want to listen to her voice the next 4-8 years in office. It’s worse than a nagging wife and mother-in-law combined. Social issues and politics aside, do the men here see any merit in that? He left me wondering….
Vote:
0 0 yeah, but now I’m kinda disgusted with Obama after the spin put on his wife’s “finally proud of my country” remark…..makes John McCain look somewhat appealing…
Is it just me, or is there no real “candidate” emrerging from either party?? I mean, I know the primary process is picking Obama and McCain but as far as someone emerging as a good, strong candidate, I just don’t see it…..
Vote:
0 0 This WAS a real candidate….his name was Ron Paul.
Vote:
0 0 Except, babs, that’s not what Michelle Obama said. It’s really disgusting when the audio is edited by the news source to make her sound like she’s saying something she didn’t say. And folks like you don’t check the facts before forming an opinion about her. Or is it that you’d already made up your mind, & this bit of misinformation just backs up your feelings?
Vote:
0 0 Why don’t you enlighten us to as how and what the news did to make her say something she didn’t actually say? Enquiring minds wanna know!
Vote:
0 0 I saw the news clip and she said something like “for the first time in my adult life I’m proud of my country.” I don’t have a link to a video clip but that’s pretty close to her exact words.
Barack Obama later offered the explanation that she referred to the politics of the country rather than the country itself.
Vote:
0 0 Seems pretty cut n dry to me, but we all know how some people and more often than not the media like to blow things out of proportion for the sake of a sensationalized news story.
Why do you think the National Enquirer is still in business? Because the idiots of our country still buy this crap. And those same idiots are the ones who eat up the sensationlism from the drive by media every evening.
Vote:
0 0 http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/20/michelle-obama-clarifies-proud-remark/
Now, here’s what she said: “For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change.”
If you listened to the various sound bites of this quote, several of them had the “really” edited out. And as babs misremembers, “really” becomes “finally”, which changes the context of the quote. And of course, you must take into account what she was referring to, which was for the first time in her adult life (as well as my own, since we’re in the same age range) people are engaging in politics in a hopeful, rather than cynical, manner.
We both became adults after the original Watergate scandal. Most of the people I know were either proudly non-political or only voting against a candidate, not for one. There seems to be a new generation coming up who are actually excited by politics & the opportunity the Obamas are presenting this country. That’s what Michelle Obama meant, & what she was referring to.
Vote:
0 0 and her follow-up explanation
Vote:
0 0 Oh, brother do you hear the latest nonsense coming from camp Hillary?
She has fewer states and delegates and popular votes than Obama, less money raised (correct me if I’m wrong), she had to loan $5 million to her own campaign, some of her top aides are working without pay, she has spent the entire primary beating him down for being too inexperienced, and now that Hillary is almost completely down and out she says she would consider Obama for vice-president?
Vote:
0 0 That’s a good one!! ROFLMAO!
Vote:
0 0 Ah, the vice presidential position is great for a less experienced individual who needs some political experience to be considered for the top spot. But this suggestion was odd.
With her seemingly losing the nomination, this smacks of desperation or maybe a ploy to extend the olive branch so that he will consider HER in return.
Vote:
0 0 . . . .yet after all the racist spewing by Obama, I kinda like Hilary a little better; maybe as the lesser of two evils? I don’t think Obama was condoning the “Reverend” Wright’s nonsense about 9/11 but I was horrified to hear Obama’s business about “typical white people” crossing the street when they saw black people coming, as well as his assertion that we (white people) are all still somehow to blame for things that happened 160 years ago (well before anyone in my family was even in this country).
Imagine, for a moment, if Hilary had used the term “typical black person”. Yowza.
Vote:
0 0 Come on, all you old timers out there, remember with me:
We didn’t know about the president’s peccadillos because the press kept it to themselves, and allowed him his privacy.
We didn’t know if someone’s second cousin sixty times removed was a card carrying member of the KKK or the Aryan Nations or the Black Panthers.
We didn’t know if someone used recreational drugs in their youth (as I did, and some of you did, also).
We didn’t expect our candidates to be perfect automatons, they were as human as the rest of us were.
In these days of our over-videotaped lives, with the world wide web quickly ensnaring all of us little flies in its sticky grasp, it seems like we know far too much and place far too much importance on those minutiae.
It’s over exposure, and the picture we develop from it is no better than the negative (pun intended).
Vote:
0 0 Kind of makes me wonder why anyone would want to run for office anymore. No one is perfect, that is a given. It is interesting to see these points focused on by some and ignored by others. The way I see it, the more information out there the better. It makes for a more informed choice. Inevitably, we end up voting for the lesser of two evils! lol
Vote:
0 0 babs, please back up your claim of “his assertion that we (white people) are all still somehow to blame for things that happened 160 years ago.” Based on your past track record, I don’t take your word as gold when it comes to remembering the words of other people.
I actually understood his comment about typical white people (of their generation), referring to his grandmother. I also have relatives from Kansas from that generation, and that’s exactly how they feel. In fact, my relatives were a lot more vocal than she, when it comes to “typical black people.” Of course, they were never referred to as black people; there were other, more derogatory terms used in our household.
If your relatives who were raised during the ’20s & ’30s don’t instinctively react in a similar manner, then I’d say they weren’t Americans but from another part of the world. Either that, or they are people of color who suffered the effects of Jim Crow in this country.
Vote:
0 0 I’m from the south and probably one of only three persons in my extended family who isn’t extremely prejudiced against people of color (any color, any hint of color).
Actually, my parents were equal opportunity haters, they railed against people from other religions, other nationalities, other sexual preferences, other lifestyles, other income brackets (we were poor). I was raised by white people who would have raised a mighty ruckus over the pastor’s words, because they would never have identified with the oppressors, and would have thought him “uppity”.
But I saw what the minority people went through there in the South. And even though I agree with Obama that our country has come a long way, I agree with his pastor that the seeds of that dark time are still flourishing.
What did Obama (or someone) say recently? We are better than this. But that doesn’t mean the hurts aren’t still out there, that the old sins aren’t still being perpetrated.
We just don’t see them much here in SE Idaho.
Vote:
0 0 I was always taught that two wrongs don’t make a right….white racism and black racism and victimhood building don’t engender coming together and being judged on the content of our character vs. skin color.
I don’t see how spewing forth poor me, I have been victimized and so have my descendants as being very effective in building support for equal treatment under the law. All this engenders, IMO, is more divisiveness and defensiveness. Many black power brokers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson campaigned hard against Clarence Thomas when he was picked for the Supreme Court. Thomas pulled himself up by the boot straps, worked hard, stayed in school, and did not fall into the victimhood we see now. Sharpton and Jackson felt very threatened by the likes of Thomas because he wasn’t about playing the victim or blaming “white society” for problems he experienced. Thomas was about using opportunity as a means to overcome discrimination.
Asking for reparations, blaming the US Government for the AIDS virus and drug use by blacks is about as patently ridiculous as whites who blame blacks for decadance and moral decline and other societal problems. All this finger pointing and race baiting is destructive to the country. The politicians want this race baiting to continue because it divides us and creates polar camps. Politicians get to keep their respective power base(s) and nothing gets done. They all claim to want to bring us together but it is all lip service.
Many people were enamored with Obama until this flap came up because alot of people thought he wasn’t a politician. The entire Rev. Wright mess brought it home that Obama really is just another politician who got into bed with a race baiter who was interested in keeping his power base at the church. Obama kept his association with Wright for 20 years as a means to get elected and maintain influence within one of many distinct power bases in Chicago, Illinois. While he may not have agreed with everything said by Wright, the fact is that these types of associations are double edged swords–they can get you elected in certain races, but they can also damage your chances in a wider race of more importance. Obama will feel the effects of this association in the fall campaign. The chickens have indeed come home to roost (again) and it is more of the same old racial politics that politicians have used for decades to divide this country. I would like to think that people would rise above this….but they seem to get sucked into taking sides in a racial war of words that detracts from what Martin Luther King Jr. was attempting to do in bringing whites and blacks together.
I could be wrong, but I don’t see Rev. King agreeing with Rev. Wright on this one.
Vote:
0 0 ooh_child?
my “track record?” guess you have to refresh my memory on that. . . not sure at all what you are talking about.
Vote:
0 0 BTW, here is Obama’s reference to slavery in his speech:
“It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.”
Vote:
0 0 oh wait, “child” I remember now; you got upset with me for my opinion that your clever use of ebonics was offensive to black people….
so now you pounce and call me a liar or something whenever I post something….it is all coming back to me.
Vote:
0 0 I don’t see the Wright comments as coming from a race baiter as much as a man who is still angry at how he was treated, or how some of his parishioners were treated, for many years. And some may still be treated this way today. I know some racist individuals (some even here in Idaho Falls) who would treat people this way today.
I don’t believe that we can just forget the past. We should acknowledge it, understand it’s still happening in some aspects, and vow to do better in the future. (As an aside, I don’t believe in reparations unless it’s to the actual victim of the crime, like the Japanese internment population from WWII.)
I think that’s what Obama is saying, is that racism is still alive and well, but the country is slowly but surely moving on to a better future. To pretend our society didn’t do a terrible thing is folly. To pretend racism is over is folly. To acknowledge, stop the behaviors and move on seems to be the sensible approach.
Hey, Mike, and Babs, CR67 and 007, et al…we have a community here where sometimes we vehemently disagree with each other on very personal, very fundamental issues. Yet we might even think of each other as online friends of a sort, while personally thinking each other is a little nuts in certain areas. (You know, the crazy opinionated relative whom you have to see at the holidays and you’re glad you don’t have to be around the rest of the year…)
I don’t find his relationship with Wright to be strange or politically expedient, nor do I feel that he is handling the situation poorly.
Vote:
0 0 If the relationship Obama had with Wright is not politically expedient….and not made by a race baiter….are the comments more Anti-American than racial? I have run into several people that believe this is closer to the truth than playing the race card. I recall many white liberals in college that espoused the same belief that the CIA had created the AIDS virus and crack cocaine to infect and kill black Americans. SO, perhaps this entire controversy is really more about far left wing hatred of America?
Vote:
0 0 I was referring to your comment #60, babs, where you mangled the statement by Michelle Obama. You seem to hear just what the neo-cons want you to hear, and not what was actually said (or meant.)
But thanks for the section of Obama’s speech which you seem to think backs up your statement about “white folks” somehow being to blame for things that happened 160 years ago. How is this statement by Obama:
“It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.”
in any way interpreted as insinuating what you claim?
Vote:
0 0 I don’t need to be a Neo-Con to understand the statements of Michelle and Barack Obama are not statements that tend to unite the country. The fact that once they both started talking some substance….and the media actually was forced to pay attention to more than their slogans shows their true colors. The Obama’s are political opportunists just like any other politician. They are no longer unique figures in American Political History. They put their pants and dresses on like any other political family….they aren’t special anymore and most importantly, their ideology is becoming clearer every passing day.
The statements made in Michelle’s speech that babs commented on, and Obama’s 20 year close affiliation with Rev. Wright begin to tell us much about their actual thought processes and political beliefs. The fact is that many Americans are questioning Obama’s judgment, choice of associations, and most importantly, his view of the United States. Americans don’t want leaders that put the country down or call it’s citizens essentially racists, bigots, or the like. Americans want problems solved. They do not want to return to tired ideas of the trials and tribulations of racism, reparations, and victimhood. They want to move ahead.
For these reasons, Obama has slipped in the polls. For these reasons, the Democratic convention will be closer than most in years…..and with the Democrats pattern of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and their love affair with far left leaning Obama, this is exactly why the Democratic party will nominate him and lose in the general election. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist (or a Neo-Con) to point these things out. Ooh child can go right on loving Obama, but the simple fact is that people like babs and others are starting to see Obama for what he is: a politician, and a far left leaning one at that. The American public saw the same thing in far-right leaning Barry Goldwater in 1964. They ran from him then like they will run from Obama in 2008.
Vote:
0 0 Imagine that, folks, someone who’s been serving as an elected official for years, being called a politician!
*chuckles*
Keep on feeding us the “straight dope” about the Obamas & Clintons from the likes of Fox News, Mike. It’s very entertaining, to say the least…
P.S., Mike: you might want to check your facts re: your polling information. Seems you’re a little behind the times.
Personally, I’ll really enjoy a head-to-head campaign between Obama & McCain. I think you’ll be surprised by the outcome. What’s amazing to me are the numbers of self-proclaimed “true conservatives” who are planning not to support McCain in the general election. Seems these folks are sick & tired of RINO’s (thier term, not mine)pandering to their pet causes, only to be forgotten after the election. I must admit, I’m pretty tickled just watching the meltdown!
Vote:
0 0 I totally agree that Obama is yet one more politician, I never thought of him as a breath of fresh air or the second coming of (insert name of favorite deity/hero here).
I thought Romney was a politician. I thought Huckabee was a politician, as were McCain, Clinton, Edwards, et al. All politicians, all doing what they needed to do to be elected.
I also don’t understand why reparations keep coming up in this conversation, did I miss something where Obama or Wright were demanding them for black people?
I also don’t see Obama as a leftist. I saw Edwards as a leftist (and I liked him just fine). I see the three that are left as more centrist, which is why the party bases on both sides are not happy with what they have to vote for.
Interesting, when politics is the topic of conversation, because people are so polarized that they tend to see the opposition as idiots and zealots and closeminded…yet both sides see each other this way, so how can they both be right?
Sigh. I remember when bi-partisan was not a dirty word, or a sign of weakness. There was respect for the other person’s position, even if you didn’t agree with it. Good people could disagree with each other and still be considered good people.
I know, I’m old and Pollyanna-ish on this one.
Vote:
0 0 Excellent point Nemisis, we could take ooh’s comments in #84 and change the name in the blank and get the same results. I admit I am partisan about Obama and Clinton. I don’t want them in office. Ooh and the leftist crowd can probably come out and cite items of concern about McCain pandering to hard right wing nut jobs…..it truly is all about getting elected and that is job #1. What is missing from ooh’s comments is the fact that the media has given Obama a pass for so long and focused only on Slogans to such a degree that it took a parody on Saturday Night Live to get the point across that the media was in bed with Obama and wouldn’t focus on his left wing stance(s) for fear that once the American people found out his stands they wouldn’t vote for him.
As more information filters out about his beliefs, and more importantly, his voting record in the Illinois Senate and US Senate, I suspect there will be more raised eyebrows and people will begin to clue in that his agenda isn’t much different than far left wingers that don’t like America. This is much different than not liking the direction the country has taken, but still agreeing that the American framework has produced more freedom and opportunity than any country in the history of the world. American’s of all stripes can agree America needs to correct her course, but fundamentally, she has been on the right course in the history of human events.
For all the talk of division in the country, there are a large number of issues that the vast majority of us agree on. Mr. Obama is out on the fringe on many of these issues and as he is exposed ooh child and other Obama supporters will have to take a hard look at his agenda and hatred of America and ask themselves if this is what they want the country to go through. You don’t get alot of support from middle america by supporting gay marriage, drivers licenses for illegal aliens, denial of english as the official language of the United States, tax increases for all Americans, and energy policy that raises gas taxes and cuts supply by failing to drill at home.
The choices are getting clearer each day. Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996 by moving to the Center of the debate. Obama and Clinton will have a harder time doing so because they are locked in a primary battle where they are both forced to pander to the left wingers. The simple point is that Obama has done much better than expected in the primaries because he naturally is more comfortable with far left wing policies because that is what he believes. Clinton, on the other hand, will do and say anything to get elected and it shows. People who are voting in these primaries (which are mainly hard core left wingers)are wise to her ways. This is why she has struggled.
Obama has taken on the JFK look….so when I said earlier that he hasn’t seemed like a politician it’s because he has tried to take the high road of sloganeering and spouting off change. Change can be a good thing….but not if change equals socialism. So, if I am a Republican Tool and feeding ooh child the “dope” from Fox News, she can feed us the “dope” from MSNBC. I await the results of my attempt at brainwashing. lol
Vote:
0 0 Hear the latest in Hillary’s snafu about her 1996 Bosnia trip?
First she needed to prop up her foreign policy experience cred since she can only tear down Obama’s. So she claimed she landed in sniper fire on a Bosnia trip.
However, the comedian Sinbad and video evidence prove there was no sniper fire, and she was not in danger.
At first she tried to stick to her claim, then realized she was looking like a fool and tried claiming she misspoke because she was sleep-deprived. Okay, but what about her trying to stick to her claim afterwards, and what about her making the same claim a month earlier?
I encourage anyone who still thinks Hillary is worthy of your vote to read “Dereliction of Duty” by Lt. Colonol Buzz Paterson, the guy who carried the nuclear football in the Clinton White House for a couple years. He witnessed firsthand how low Hillary can and will stoop.
Please Democrats, stop this Hillary nonsense! Hillary is a liar and will say anything to do what’s right for Hillary, not what’s right for our country.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/i-was-sleep-dep.html
Vote:
0 0 Well, I think all politicians are liars of a sort. I think they all have done things I’m unhappy about, including all the current front runners.
I do not think left wingers hate this country, I think they want it to be accountable and better than it has shown it can be. They criticize it and try to make it see the bad things it has done. But no one wants to listen to criticism (even if it’s true) and no one wants to be told they did bad things. So their criticism is held up as being unpatriotic.
When we gripe about our leaders, are we being unpatriotic? When we say we messed up, and we can do better, and we’re ashamed of some of the things we did/are doing, are we being unpatriotic?
We’d rather have cheerleaders who gloss over the hard stuff with patriotic fluff? Who don’t show us the truth, because we can’t handle the truth?
Or should we swing hard right, and have fascist hatemongers who hate others for their differences? Who call names and use ad hominem attacks instead of giving honest dissent? I can’t stand Fox News and almost all talk radio, because it’s so violent in its hate and in its vitriol against anyone who doesn’t believe the same way. (To be honest, I don’t watch MSNBC, so maybe I wouldn’t like it, either.)
I mentioned that I have an on-again, off-again crush on Glenn Beck. Sometimes he really is passionate about what he believes in, but allows that someone else that is not conservative, might have a brain and a clue, too, just a different viewpoint but still valid. Sometimes he is just nasty, and acts like Bill O’Reilly, Jr. or Rush Limbaugh Lite.
Just take a wild guess as to when he’s the most appealing to me, when I’m really willing to listen to him…
Vote:
0 0 I find this current election refreshing the three possible choices right now are infinitely better than those we faced in 2004. I don’t like Hilary but she’s far better than Bush or Kerry.
I personally hope Obama gets it simply because it will shake up the status quo. The presidency is in danger of monarchy. George W Bush only got elected because his daddy was president, take that away and he’s a failed Texas businessman who would never have even been considered for governor there. Hilary only got where she is because of Bill. There has been lots of talk over the last few years about Jeb running for president or Chelsea running for congress, etc. I want new blood and new ideas in office. Thus I want Obama. I don’t agree with him on everything but at least he’s new.
As to McCain, I’d be perfectly happy with him except for his views on the war. He’s a contrarian on many things which means he’s a lot like me.
Vote:
0 0 Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it: “I want new blood and new ideas in office. Thus I want Obama. I don’t agree with him on everything but at least he’s new.”
Alot of German’s said the same thing when reasoning whether to put Adolf Hitler into office. New is not always better.
Vote:
0 0 Okay, Mike, I’m biting on this one. Where can you show me that history says a lot of Germans thought this about Hitler, so voted him in to get someone new?
“Alot of German’s said the same thing when reasoning whether to put Adolf Hitler into office.”
Vote:
0 0 I do agree that we all should be careful what we wish for!
Vote:
0 0 Read this speech by Rudolph Hess in support of electing Hitler in 1932. Hitler won with over 90% of the vote of the German people because they too were looking for something “new”.
Vote:
0 0 Wow, thanks, Mike! That was a powerful speech, and to my dismay it sounds a lot like some of the speeches we’re hearing these days!
It’s a good warning, to be careful what you wish for.
However, I’m fairly confident that Barack Obama is no Hitler, or Hitler Lite, even.
But still good to remember our history, so we are not doomed to repeat it.
(Oh, wait, but that caveat is only good if we’re NOT talking about our country’s racism problems, right?)
Hey, I’m just teasing you a little bit there…thanks again for the link.
Vote:
0 0 The other reason I’m hoping for Obama is simply to get the republicans out of office. They had the presidency and Congress for six years. To show for it we have an unjustified war (how many WMD’s have we found?), a tanked economy, an unbalanced budget after Clinton and the the republicans worked together to balance it, and no prospects of any it getting better in the future since republicans just want to maintain the status quo. I don’t know if a democrat president and congress can do better but they sure can’t do worse.
Vote:
0 0 That’s where you’re wrong. They can and probably will do worse.
But that’s just my opinion…. 
Vote:
0 0 It won’t really matter come the year 2012 anyways…..
But I’d rather have McCain at the helm when the $@%# hits the fan.
Vote:
0 0 Okay, 2012 is what, exactly?
Vote:
0 0 Where have you been living that you haven’t heard of the doomsday scenario that’s to happen in the year 2012?
Personally I don’t take much stock in it and was just saying that in jest……HOWEVER, there are some interesting theories on the subject.
Vote:
0 0 Wow. Nope, hadn’t heard of a doomsday scenario for 2012. But it figgers…that’s the year before I was planning to retire.
I was always an apocalypse kinda gal, always wanted to lead a rag-tag group of survivors into the promised land in my recurring nightmares of WWIII.
Thanks for the info. Time to start up that elusive food storage, eh?
Vote:
0 0 Check out this little gem….it always pays off to follow the money. Obama has given over $710,000 to super delegates vs. Clinton’s $236,000.
This bodes well for Obama and poorly for Clinton. Looks like Mr. Obama is trying to buy the presidency! I am shocked!!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×5307612
Vote:
0 0 Shocked? I think not. I think you are thrilled to be able to point out the evil doings of this detestable pair.
I hope it was an enjoyable finish to your day…
Vote:
0 0 Whatever the purpose for the contributions from his PAC, I admit it does appear to be vote buying.
He has out-savvied Hillary almost all around, this election season. For someone who was annointed as the front runner and nominee, she must have figured she had nothing further to do than to appear and debate once in awhile…because that seems to be about all she did.
Obama got his grass roots supporters engaged, and in every area has proven he’s more organized and ready to go…while she’s lagging in the polls and playing catch up.
It’s been interesting to watch the decline of the annointed one.
Vote:
0 0 So he’s spending more money on the folks who make decisions and Hillary is busy spreading lies, why is one better than the other? Do we need to dig up shenanigans that Bush or Bill Clinton pulled during their campaigns? (ever see the one where Bill Clinton was heisting satellite feeds of Bush Sr’s advertisements days before they aired?)
Vote:
0 0 I was wrong about taxes and government involvement in our lives. To all of you that I brainwashed into taking personal responsibility and less government handouts, I apologize. We need to raise them now and nail the rich guys.
Vote:
0 0 There is a link in the above post….you just can’t see it unless you hover about it with the cursor.
Vote:
0 0 LOL! Good post Mike! I was reading in disbelief the whole way through until I got to the end and had a little chuckle.
Vote:
0 0 I believe that all politicians do whatever they can think of to get elected. I think I haven’t been jazzed by someone I thought was truly going to make a difference since I threw my vote away in 1980, voting for John Anderson.
My friends were so angry with me then, but I didn’t like what Carter had done and I was disenchanted with Reagan (I voted for Reagan as a write in candidate on my ballot in the 1976 election, because I was an ardent conservative Republican, and didn’t like old Liberal Gerald Ford. I was terrified when Carter was elected, I knew the Russians were going to take over. Sheesh, what a difference 34 years makes!)
One of my daughters (and her husband) voted for Nader in 2000. I think I was as disappointed with them then as my friends were with me 20 years prior. But I understood their frustrations.
This year is still up in the air for me but so far Obama’s ahead [and strangely enough, I didn't get a dime from his PAC!]
Vote:
0 0 Okay, now y’all know math is my weak point. 32 years sounds about right.
Vote:
0 0 I gotta tell you Nemisis, the Greek Gods are rumbling over your take on Obama. If you are truly libertarian, it might shock you to note that Mr. Obama wants to Mama everyone. Take a look at his recent proposals to regulate industries more. That means more government intervention and control. How about more gun control? He favored that as well. I will note that he is more freedom oriented when it comes to minors not having to get parental notification and approval for abortions…..recall that he gave a one word answer, “No”, to the question whether minors seeking abortions should have parental knowledge and approval. He changed his tune slightly a few years later again answering in a questionnaire when running for State Senate that parental notification might have to occur if the kids were 12 or 13! How about more taxes that he and Hillary have pledged to raise….I don’t mind paying more taxes to remedy the problems with Medicare and Social Security…..but without solid spending cuts to balance it out I don’t want to pay more money for a net negative result! We also have his abhorence to the death penalty. The one thing most libertarians can agree on is that the government must protect it’s citizens from harm. That is the chief and prime reason for government. However, the way that the trial lawyers have tied the courts up on the criminal and civil side with litigation nothing gets done very quickly….this is the increased cost that many cite as reasons not to impose the death sentence—it costs too much. Ask Ada County Attorney and Former Democratic State Chair William Houck how much he made off defending Jim Woods (who killed Jeralee Underwood in Pocatello after raping and dismembering her)? He made a killing off of her death. So, go Obama!!!!! but be prepared to throw freedom out the window. He may bring the troops home but what else he brings in it’s place certainly isn’t freedom and respect for law abiding people that want protection from thugs or at least the ability to arm themselves for protection when the government cannot or will not step in to do it’s rightful duty.
Vote:
0 0 Excellent post Mike!
Vote:
0 0 Mike, I’m more worried about McCain favoring corporation rights over individual rights than I am about Obama over-regulating corporations, since he’d have to have cooperation of Congress to do this, and most of Congress is beholden to their major corporate donors (and won’t want to dry up the money supply).
You said, “The one thing most libertarians can agree on is that the government must protect it’s citizens from harm.”
As a libertarian I am also opposed to the death penalty. I believe it’s a government panacaea to the masses, to pretend they’re doing something about crime. I don’t believe our system is perfect (although it’s pretty darn good) and I believe that innocent people get convicted and have probably been executed. I can’t support taking a life, I think it’s governmental murder.
I’m also against parental notification for abortions sought by minors. That sounds like it’s anti-parental rights, but it’s more of a pro-individual minor rights position.
Democrats tend to agree with me on social issues, and Republicans tend to agree with me on fiscal issues. At times, both parties are totally disgusted with me.
But hey, it flows both ways. I just try to be as open minded as I can, and respect that others think differently (and I believe that their opinions are as valid as my own, just different.)
Vote:
0 0 What exactly are corporation rights in your view?
If one follows the money it is pretty clear to see that the Democrats in the House, Senate, and even Obama are out-fundraising the Republicans nearly 6 to 1.
If you look at McCain since the Keating Five it seems to me that he has learned his lesson by fire that getting too close to business was damaging. He has consistently attempted to remove money from politics. While individuals contribute, business’ contribute more and especially with the use of bundeling contributions and Political Action Committees, business continues to pervert the political process through infusion of money and special interest bidding out bidding the public interest to the highest contributor(s).
It seems to me with news that Obama’s PAC is raising more money….and handing it out ot Super Delegates he is buying the nomination. That seems extremely anti-democratic and speaks to the need for Campaign Finance Reform that McCain has touted for well over the last decade.
___________
I am interested in your position on minors having rights to an abortion without parental notification and other ancillary issues. If you recall, a school district in Maine decided to keep any medical visits by minors from the parents. Their view was that once parents approved their kids to goto the school sponsored health clinic they had no right to know what their child was prescribed or counseled about. Do you support that as well? Think about it…..if you are going to support minor rights you would….but at the expense of expansion of state power over our children. I await your analysis. No trap here, honestly looking at how you deal with these dilemas.
Vote:
0 0 I mentioned before that I think the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans now, for political dirty tricks and corporate sponsorship. The lines are blurring. They are getting more of the money these days because they have more perceived power and corporations don’t want to miss out on the potential influence.
I have always liked McCain, in many ways. I agree with campaign finance reform, but I want public financed campaigns to level the playing field from the corruption of influence.
I’m torn about parents’ rights and minors. I just don’t see minors as property of the parents, but I don’t want the decision making to be in the hands of the government, either.
To me, if a teenaged child can decide to have sex, the teenaged child can decide what to do afterwards. I’ve high hopes that the parents have a great relationship with their child so the communication lines are there, and that the child seeks out the parents for guidance. However, that’s a pipe dream in many situations (it would have been impossible for me as a teenager).
I’m torn about the school medical situation. Was this for grade school children? I don’t think I feel as strongly about grade school children being able to make decisions for themselves, I think they really still need parental guidance and can’t make those kinds of choices on their own, if needed. I don’t see the secondary schools respecting the child’s medical privacy as the government usurping anyone’s rights, because I feel the rights belong to the child who has the responsibility to tell the parents what they need to know.
I’m glad you’re seriously trying to listen to my positions. You should know I’m not trying to convince you to change your position. I’m usually willing to say why I think something but I’m usually hesitant to say anyone else’s opinion is wrong.
I think more than anything that is the big change I developed when I grew old…I didn’t feel the intense need to be right, or the need to convince others to share my beliefs.
Vote:
0 0 I think the tide is shifting in favor of Hilary right now. I think Obama’s “bitter” comment hurt him, but I honestly think a series of miscues on his part are making people aware that maybe he is not politically savvy enough for the job.
I just saw a clip on YouTube of the “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright, spouting off about how white people created HIV and deliberately infected black people to destroy their race.
?????????
Seriously, this guy is a lunatic! And he HATES white people! I realize Obama doesn’t necessarily embrace all of Wright’s rants, but I believe, if it were me, I would distance myself completely from someone so blatantly racist, hate-filled and delusional as Wright apparently is.
Vote:
0 0 ps the “miscues” I am talking about include:
-the “Have you checked out the price of arugula at Whole Foods?” statement at a rally in Iowa, where there is no “Whole Foods”. Or arugula, possibly.
-the “typical white person” comment: that his grandmother often acted like a “typical white person” by engaging in alleged racist behavior.
certainly, a few flubs along the way are par for the course but I think his statements are revealing, especially when coupled with his refusal to separate himself from the AIDS Conspiracy Theorist.
Mike, thanks for the info, above, about his agenda for aligning with Wright in the first place and the local politics issue. I wondered what that was all about and I think you answered my question.
Vote:
0 0 Project Chaos is working perfectly….. hehehe…
Vote:
0 0 OMG……..I guess Obama heard me!!!
Great distancing, I can’t quibble with that!!!!
Vote:
0 0 Can you spell “P O L I T I C A L E X P E D I E N C Y”?
Vote:
0 0 Obama can……and he did today. A wee bit late if you ask me. At first he says he can no more disown Wright as he could his white grandma.
Now, after Wright goes on his little tour over the weekend making more inflamatory remarks and being disrespectful, Obama had no choice but to say what he should have said right out of the gate–if he was really serious and believed that Wright was indeed a race baiter and perpetuating hate mongers from the black and the white side–he would have incorporated these thoughts into his race speech in Philadelphia. More of the same political manuevering. People were voting for Obama because he billed himself as different. What we are clearly seeing now is just another politician….do you think Hillary is glad?! I bet she is….now she can run against somebody just like herself.
Vote:
0 0 Can we rename the title to say “lets stop the Obama nonsense”
Vote:
0 0 Renaming would be “let’s stop this Liberal Democratic Nonsense” because we’re all hanging on the edges of our chairs, holding our breath, waiting for someone in that celebrated Liberal Media to yet again use something (anything) to prove that those darn liberal politicians are leading us down the primrose path to our ultimate ruination…
Why do we expect our politicians to be more perfect than we ourselves are? We don’t even care when our local police officers are human, so why can’t our politicians be human, too?
Vote:
0 0 1) The liberal media won’t do what you suggest until the story becomes so big they can’t even run it….for example, Fox ran with the Jeremiah Wright sermons for nearly a week before anyone else jumped in from that “liberal media”.
2) Politicians espouse family values or the fact that they have the best judgment to lead us….when they exhibit the latter we are then free to hit them over the head and call them on it.
Vote:
0 0 Mike, thanks for your thoughtful response. I appreciate your viewpoint.
The 2nd point really speaks to the fact that those we have in a position of trust are expected to be and behave better than the rest of us in many ways…public servants such as politicians, police officers, teachers, etc.
Your first point shows me that this became news because of the conservative media looking for it, finding it, and not letting it go. I spoke about this in another forum, that Wright situation is a combination of him taking advantage of his association with Obama to grab his 15 minutes of fame, and the media dogging Wright’s footsteps to hopefully find something sensational to report about.
I understand that you and I see this differently, and I respect your opinion.
Vote:
0 0 I just came across a lovely gem from Obama and wanted to share it with everyone to get your responses:
Obama pressed for an amendment to the Patriot Act requiring authorities to notify persons who were under investigation for terror activities. If he had gotten his way, the government would have been required to notify terror suspects within 7 days of an investigation being launched, covert/overt search warrant being served, etc.. Can you imagine how this would have went with the terror cells disrupted in Miami, Buffalo, NY, and other places? This provision is absurd. Can you imagine how investigations the FBI was running on organized crime figures would have turned out if they had to tell targets they were being investigated?
Read about it in NewsMax in an article by Dick Morris. It left me shaking my head about this guy even further than I already have.
Vote:
0 0 One thing that I would recommend to all voters regardless of your party affiliation, is to go to the site “factcheck.org” and check out the facts about the candidates running for election. Look up the matters that are important to you especially.
We tend to get caught up in how family and friends feel, what the media puts out etc., without facts about the candidate.
One of the reasons I bring this up is because of Mike’s last post. I’ve always considered Obama a schmoozer and some of that was in fact verified on that site. The other is simply because around election time, we all here a whole lot of untruths about various candidates.
Vote:
0 0 I don’t believe you, Mike. Please quote & link to Dick Morris’ article.
Vote:
0 0 The article is in the Newsmax magazine that is on the shelves now. I read the article at Barnes & Noble the other night. It is in a yellow box on the right side page in the magazine. It has a photo of Dick Morris and 10 things that will suprise you about Obama. Read it for yourself and then you can “believe” me.
Vote:
0 0 Here is the link to the actual proposal, sponsored by, oddly enough (ha ha) LARRY CRAIG and co-sponsored by Obama:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?tab=main&bill=s109-737
Mike, thanks for the info; would love to see the rest of the list of “surprising” things about BHO.
Vote:
0 0 Indiana still up for grabs……..yowza.
Vote:
0 0 I don’t see Indiana as up for grabs, I see it as an Obama win except that Limbaugh’s dittoheads crossed over and voted for Clinton to mess with things.
They apparently did this legally, but it’s just wrong to play dirty in the name of democracy and freedom, and it reinforces my poor opinion of Limbaugh.
I was a Hillary supporter long ago. She blew it during the campaign and I tipped to Obama…now I’m wishing they’d just kiss and make up and join the same ticket and stop acting like squabbling Republicans.
I’m about to vote for Nader, unless John McCain stops pandering to the religious right. Then I might seriously consider him again.
Vote:
0 0 Nader….that’s a good one. Now I see why you buy into Meso’s imperialist rants. I have a question for you as a result that probably belongs on the gas price thread but here it goes:
You noted that we screwed up and needed to fix things. What do you think the price of gas would be today if our troops were not in Iraq? Is our presence in the Middle East guiding the price of fuel? If so, how has this come to pass in your view. I am interested in your take on this issue. Look forward to your response.
Vote:
0 0 I’ll take a crack at that one! Our fuel prices would NOT be as high as they are today, if our troops weren’t in Iraq. Oil production in Iraq is at an all time low. How much oil do you honestly think is coming out of this war torn country? Their not even running at half capacity right now. This move to take over their oil refinerys under the guise of the “war on terror” completely backfired on us and THIS is why our fuel prices are at an all time high.
Thank you, thank you very much…..I’ll be here all evening! Please tip your waitresses…
Vote:
0 0 The whole point of going into Iraq was for oil; to keep it underground & not flood the market & therefore lower prices. Saddam was threatening OPEC with breaking his quota & pumping much more oil than the Saudis required.
Now with Saddam gone, the Saudis & others have the price of oil just where they want, & going in the right direction for them.
Vote:
0 0 That would have been better than what we’ve got right now. Before the war started oil was going for less than 60 dollars a barrel. It’s at least double that right now and going up every month. We’re spending billions of dollars trying to update their antiquated system of old delipadated Soviet pumps and equipment, so everything has to be completely replaced. We’re losing money hand over fist from this whole fiasco.
Vote:
0 0 so………Bush wanted the oil prices to go up so everyone would hate him? I thought the war was Bush’s attempt to win what his father started? or because of WMD? or because he is the evil genius that led Congress into war?
or possibly because of 9/11?
which is it? I hear a new theory every week and not one theory mentions keeping the terrorists off American soil (which so far has really happened!)
so why did Congress declare war???
Vote:
0 0 If we had not entered Iraq, how much more money could we have invested at home in alternative fuels research? Would we be driving 100 mpg vehicles by now? Would we even NEED foreign oil?
I’d like to take the concept of the ceramic-based engine to the extreme… how about a plug-in hybrid ethanol/electric ceramic turbine engine? It’s been done with great results, and Volvo is looking at the concept for heavy duty trucks. The drawback right now is bulk - ceramic turbines don’t really scale down too well because of heat flows. But… mass transit relies on bulky vehicles, and we need more of that anyway. Just a thought. If you guys are interested I’ll post more info.
Vote:
0 0 anonymous, Congress didn’t declare war. They authorized Bush to go into Iraq, but they never declared war as required by our Constitution. That’s part of the problem.
Besides, the Iraq debacle isn’t a war. It’s an occupation. Officially, we’re in a “War on Terror.” But an undeclared (by Congress) one.
Vote:
0 0 Yeah, Mike, what all of them just said, and I don’t think that they were just ranting imperialistically.
I truly believe that we helped our buddies (or at least the Bush family’s buddies) the Saudis by invading Iraq. I think the price of oil went up as a result of all this mess and I don’t see it going down again no matter what we do, now.
I don’t think we have a good endgame in sight, and I am torn right now about how best to resolve this issue. I am afraid to stay in Iraq, but I’m also afraid to pull out. So I’m angry that our country was buffaloed into going there in the first place, and I wish I knew what to do from here.
I said before that I agree that I waste resources and could be more conservative in many areas of my life. The horrible price increases in everything under the sun will strengthen my resolve to live more frugally.
I’m just a little bitter because I’ve worked my ass off for all these years, hoping for a little comfort in my dotage. Now, I’ll just end up scrimping to get by the same as many less industrious citizens do and it makes me wonder, what was the point of all that effort, for no gain?
Damn! I sure am a whiny person today. Please take my complaints with a grain of salt, folks. I’m happy to be alive and glad to have this discussion with all of you.
Vote:
0 0 I don’t think for one second that there aren’t a number of “sleeper cells” still in this country. Just because there hasn’t been an “attack”, doesn’t mean their not here. We as Americans don’t understand the type of patience these people have because we’re such an instant gratification type of country. Their biding their time like they always have and it’s only a matter of time before something happens. Don’t think for one second that nothing has happened because we’re occupying Iraq and fighting a “war on terror”. It’s inevitable and there’s not much we can do to stop it. Especially with our borders being wide open the way they are.
Vote:
0 0 ooh_child; can you give me a link that supports your opinion that Congress didn’t declare war? the President has no power to declare war……….only Congress does.
I seem to remember Hilary, et al., voting in favor of a declaration of war……..
Vote:
0 0 anonymous,
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./temp/~c107KALAZs::
That’s the text of the resolution. Read it for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States
That’s an explanation of the difference between a declaration of war & what we have in Iraq, which was officially an authorization of military engagement. Now, we are just occupying Iraq & trying to stay alive during a civil war inside Iraq.
Enjoy.
Vote:
0 0 the first link doesn’t work………
so you are saying, if I understand you correctly, that the vote taken by Congress was somehow illegal? why did they agree to vote at all then? and vote to go to war???
Vote:
0 0 Try this one, anonymous:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/bliraqreshouse.htm
Of course, if you were really interested you’d google it yourself. It took me 15 seconds to find it.
Where in the world did I say it was an illegal vote? Did you even read the differences between the two actions as described in the Wiki article?
Vote:
0 0 Interesting observations from House, ooh, 007 and others. I really must say that the first time I read the responses, my emotional side was telling me, “absolutely right”. However, when you look at the facts the matter is not quite as absolute as ya’ll might like.
Guest House: You noted that oil production in Iraq is at an all time low. You also noted that Iraq was not even at 1/2 capacity in production. Your comment that “THIS is why our fuel prices are at an all time high” really caught my attention for the following reasons:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article3285580.ece
I took some information from the US Government but didn’t include that link because I figured you might think it was ‘Bush biased’. So, I chose a source from overseas to bolster the following—
“From The TimesFebruary 1, 2008
Iraq’s revival boosted as oil production rises to 2.4m barrels a day
Oil production in Iraq is at its highest level since the US-led invasion of 2003, reaching 2.4 million barrels a day, thanks largely to improved security measures in the north.
The country’s Oil Ministry will shortly invite international oil companies to bid for contracts to help Iraq to boost output at its investment-starved “super-giant” oilfields. Production is expected to pass the prewar level of 2.6 million barrels by the end of the year, and Hussain al-Shahristani, the Iraqi Oil Minister, told The Times that he expected production to reach six million barrels a day within four years.” So, being that I paid attention in school what we are seeing is a gap of only 0.2 million barrels difference from pre-war to present in Iraqi oil production. These statistics challenge your assertion that Iraqi oil production is not even at 1/2 capacity. You can get more statistics from the US Government at this link that back up the story above:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iraq/Background.html
These statistics and realities on the ground also break apart ooh child’s cynical liberal assessment of Iraq. I find it amazing that ooh can even attempt to assert that we went into Iraq to keep the oil “underground and not flood the market with oil..thereby lowering prices”. During December 2002, the United States imported 11.3 million barrels of oil from Iraq. In comparison, imports from other major OPEC oil-producing countries during December 2002 included:
Saudi Arabia - 56.2 million barrels
Venezuela 20.2 million barrels
Nigeria 19.3 million barrels
Kuwait - 5.9 million barrels
Algeria - 1.2 million barrels
Leading imports from non-OPEC countries during December 2002 included:
Canada 46.2 million barrels
Mexico 53.8 million barrels
United Kingdom 11.7 million barrels
Norway 4.5 million barrels
(Source:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aairaqioil.htm)
While 11.3 million barrels is important, it in no way is responsible for higher gas prices and market fluctuations to the extent that Iraq alone was/is responsible for skyrocketing prices. There are a variety of other factors such as attacks in Nigerian oil infrastructure, OPEC countries moving to the euro vs. dollar for pricing, demand from China and India, as well as instability on the Northern Iraqi border between the Kurds and Turkish Army that just went on Red Alert yet again (this area has a large oil pipeline that sends supply to various European countries and is a vital link much like the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf. One of the more important factors that has been overlooked by observers has been the fact that Saudi Arabia was able to keep other OPEC nations in check to keep prices low at the behest of Washington. With enough spare capacity at times to be able to increase production sufficiently to offset the impact of lower prices on its own revenue, Saudi Arabia could enforce discipline by threatening to increase production enough to crash prices. In reality even this was not an OPEC enforcement mechanism unless OPEC’s goals coincided with those of Saudi Arabia. Yet, with the new demands on oil from the likes of China, India, and Europe, the extra Saudi capacity has dried up. They are selling the extra supply and have less and less bargaining power to keep other OPEC nations in line. I will agree that the US aided Saudi Arabia by invading Iraq. Iraq’s bathist government was a real threat to the Sunni/Wahabist Saudi Government. Saddam already invaded Kuwait and was threatening to do the same again to Saudi Arabia. Can anyone imagine the consequences of Saddam controlling Saudi oil fields? If you thought prices were high now…..
Simple assertions made by posters above have ignored these and many other facts for the quick emotional fix and yet again blaming President Bush for the problems at work here. If American Imperialism was alive and well at work as Meso has asserted, then why aren’t we simply imposing our will and forcing lower gas prices? The answer to that question is found above as I have pointed out. Another interesting tidbit. I have included a link to a chronology of events around the world (not all linked to American Imperialism –lol) that clearly point out price increases are based on a variety of elements. Take a look for yourself and see some of the moves taken overseas that have effected the National Price of Oil to the United States. I think it will give you some new perspective that America, like many nations, is dependent on world affairs happening elsewhere that we have had nothing to do with.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/AOMC/Overview.html
The second link shows the retail price of gas from 2003 to present. The increases have been substantial, but incremental as the chart clearly shows. This does not make it palatable, but it clearly shows a pattern that is unsettling and continues to point to a need to diversify and strengthen domestic energy sources in the form of oil, coal, nuclear, etc…
http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx
We have much to complain about and we have much to fix and ‘right our ship’. However, the criticisms placed here are not supported by the available facts and simplistic and bombastic retorts that fail to appreciate the intricacies of the global economy that so many like to think the United States has single handedly shaped and formed to it’s will. I realize this post is long but this topic takes more than a few sentences bad mouthing the country.I hope that Guest House, 007, ooh and Nemesis take the time to read the points I have laid out.
Guest House–I hope you have tipped your waitress too. I just gave you a dollars worth.
Vote:
0 0 ooh_child, here are your words:
“they never declared war as required by our Constitution. That’s part of the problem.”
I guess I read that “as required by the Constitution” to mean that it was your opinion that such was illegal. Guess I should have said “unconstitutional”.
Tomato, to-mah-to.
But you still didn’t answer my questions……..
Vote:
0 0 so if Congress passed a “resolution” authorizing the use of force against Iraq, isn’t Congress equally to blame for the war?
the wikipedia article is an opinion piece; has a huge disclaimer over the top of it that no adequate sources have yet been provided for the writer’s opinions.
Vote:
0 0 Okay. It’s just after 7am on a Friday morning. I’ve taken a vacation day and I’m thinking, will the rest of the day be just like this? I’ve already eaten so much crow for breakfast that I’m likely to be full for days…
Sheesh! Mike, that comment #145 sealed the deal for me. You patiently (and with very little snark, which was the part I respected the most) laid out your case and backed it up with data from various sources. I know you can’t always trust what you read but at first glance, you have totally put this issue to rest for me (can’t speak for others).
You are correct, the emotions run high and the words looked good, but the facts don’t appear to be there, on the things we were saying before.
I thank you for your patience, and my perspective has changed on this issue.
Vote:
0 0 Excellent rebuttal Mike. You obviously found much more current firgures than I had. What I noticed in all the research I did was that we’re spending billions of dollars over there to revamp their antiquated oil wells and there is still alot of work to be done. Not to mention all the corruption and sabotage going on on a daily basis, which means we’re going to be stuck pouring money into this setup for generations to come. That cost doesn’t even include the outrageous monies we’re spending on the war effort. Meanwhile, our national debt continues to explode and the many problems we have here at home continue to get pushed to the back burner.
I do appreciate your post, well done.
I believe I’m now 97 cents in the hole.
Vote:
0 0 Thanks for the indepth analysis, Mike.
Here’s where I got my information to come to the conclusions I have:
http://www.gregpalast.com/its-still-the-oilsecret-condi-meeting-on-oil-before-invasion/
I’ve read much more than just what is presented in this one article, but it sums it up quite well for me. If you want to read more about the issue, check out more of Greg Palast’s writings. Incidently, Palast (of the BBC) couldn’t get any of the American media markets to carry this story. I wonder why?
From the article:
“…the Bush Administration said the war had nothing to do with Iraq’s oil. Indeed, in 2002, the State Department stated, and its official newsletter, the Washington Post, repeated, that State’s Iraq study group, “does not have oil on its list of issues.”
But now, we’ve learned that, despite protestations to the contrary, Condoleezza Rice held a secret meeting with the former Secretary-General of OPEC, Fadhil Chalabi, an Iraqi, and offered Chalabi the job of Oil Minister for Iraq. (It is well established that the President of the United States may appoint the cabinet ministers of another nation if that appointment is confirmed by the 101st Airborne.)
In all the chest-beating about how the war did badly, no one seems to remember how the war did very, very well — for Big Oil.
The war has kept Iraq’s oil production to 2.1 million barrels a day from pre-war, pre-embargo production of over 4 million barrels. In the oil game, that’s a lot to lose. In fact, the loss of Iraq’s 2 million barrels a day is equal to the entire planet’s reserve production capacity.
In other words, the war has caused a hell of a supply squeeze — and Big Oil just loves it. Oil today is $57 a barrel versus the $18 a barrel price under Bill “Love-Not-War” Clinton.
Since the launch of Operation Iraqi Liberation, Halliburton stock has tripled to $64 a share — not, as some believe, because of those Iraq reconstruction contracts — peanuts for Halliburton. Cheney’s former company’s main business is “oil services.” And, as one oilman complained to me, Cheney’s former company has captured a big hunk of the rise in oil prices by jacking up the charges for Halliburton drilling and piping equipment.
But before we shed tears for Big Oil’s having to hand Halliburton its slice, let me note that the value of the reserves of the five biggest oil companies more than doubled during the war to $2.36 trillion.
And that was the plan: putting a new floor under the price of oil. I have that in writing. In 2005, after a two-year battle with the State and Defense Departments, they released to my team at BBC Newsnight the “Options for a Sustainable Iraqi Oil Industry.” Now, you might think our government shouldn’t be writing a plan for another nation’s oil. Well, our government didn’t write it, despite the State Department seal on the cover. In fact, we discovered that the 323-page plan was drafted in Houston by oil industry executives and consultants.
The suspicion is that Bush went to war to get Iraq’s oil. That’s not true. The document, and secret recordings of those in on the scheme, made it clear that the Administration wanted to make certain America did not get the oil. In other words, keep the lid on Iraq’s oil production — and thereby keep the price of oil high.
Of course, the language was far more subtle than, “Let’s cut Iraq’s oil production and jack up prices.” Rather, the report uses industry jargon and euphemisms which require Iraq to remain an obedient member of the OPEC cartel and stick to the oil-production limits — “quotas” — which keep up oil prices.
The Houston plan, enforced by an army of occupation, would, “enhance [Iraq's] relationship with OPEC,” the oil cartel.”
Vote:
0 0 Mike, thank you for finally putting all this info into a readable (and understand-able) format…….great post.
Vote:
0 0 anonymous, the reason I wanted an official declaration of war against Iraq was to force members of Congress to make a stand, one way or the other. Instead, what we have is exactly what I feared would happen: the slippery excuses of the likes of Senator Clinton. While she knew she had to support this invasion in order to not appear “weak” in the eyes of potential supporters for her Presidential bid, she has the “out” of saying she didn’t think Bush would take the resolution to the extreme: invasion & occupation. So she supported the military engagement, but figured Bush acted too soon. She wouldn’t be able to do that if it was just a “war or no war” vote.
At least McCain is honest in his declaration that we’ll be in Iraq for 100 years. At least Obama resisted the invasion from the outset. Clinton is trying to play both sides of the fence, and the wording of the resolution allows her the cover she needs to accomplish this.
Look at that - I brought this discussion back to the original issue! Whoo hoo!
Vote:
0 0 I get it; good points, ooh_child.
Vote:
0 0 ooh_child, #152…that is a good way to look at that situation. I guess I do see that Hillary (and many others) gave themselves an out or were really clueless.
So I don’t know which is worse…playing politics as usual, being a warmonger, or being clueless.
Makes Obama look better for this issue, he seemed to get it right from the start.
Vote:
0 0 New information out on Mr. Obama sponsoring needle exchange and drug legalization. I bet 007 will vote for him for sure now. lol
Free-basing anyone?
Vote:
0 0 Sorry, forgot the link for a little light reading:
Vote:
0 0 Both of those ideas treat drug addictions medically instead of criminally. Obama supports changing our failed drug policies?
NOW he has my vote.
Vote:
0 0 Mine too! Thanks Mike!
Vote:
0 0 Excellent. Glad I was able to point you in the right direction.
Vote:
0 0 Excellent site, Mike, I see much that I like in all the candidates’ positions on drugs. Each of them has some good ideas.
Thanks from me, too!
Vote:
0 0 Mine too! Thanks for doing all the leg-work Mike!
Vote:
0 0 Mike, just for your information….free-basing & shooting up are completely different. (but I’m sure you knew that)
Vote:
0 0 Yeah, I used to live in San Fransisco….I know it all too well.
Leave Your Comment
Our Community's Comment Guidelines:- Please stay polite and on topic.
- Your email will never be published.
- No profanity or euphemisms for profanity.
- No personal attacks, name-calls, put-downs, or baiting other guests, races, genders, or religions.
- Express opinions, facts, logic, and reasoning; just don’t argue for argument’s sake.
- No commercial links (unless absolutely relevant to the discussion) and no religious proselytizing.
- No religious discussions (for or against). Go to http://religion.idahofallstoday.com for religious discussions.
- Use the "I" word as much as possible to demonstrate responsibility.
- Limit yourself to using one name per thread to demonstrate responsibility.
- If you think a comment is inappropriate, ask Joe to review it.
Loading ...
Vote:
So who are the front-runners nowadays? Hillary vs. Obama for the democrats, and Rudy vs. Mitt for the republicans? Or am I behind in the news?