Yes, we can.

[sleepyjeff]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYY73RO_egw

So she was proud to be an American as a child, went to Harvard and until just recently was not proud to be an American???

[Scrooge McSam]

What about that troubles you?

[Alex]

I'm not proud to be an American.

Seems like a patently silly thing to be proud of. Kind of like being proud I have a nose.

[sleepyjeff]

What about that troubles you?

If it isn't obvious than I am afraid I am even more troubled.

[Scrooge McSam]

K Den... Good luck working through that.

[Strangler Lewis]

I think there's a difference between saying you don't feel blessed (or lucky) to be an American and saying that you feel that this country has fallen short of its ideals (whatever you believe them to be). After all, wasn't the entire Reagan revolution about restoring pride in America?

[Moonliner]

I think there's a difference between saying you don't feel blessed (or lucky) to be an American and saying that you feel that this country has fallen short of its ideals (whatever you believe them to be). After all, wasn't the entire Reagan revolution about restoring pride in America?

In large part "pride" is linked to how others regard you.


Based on my experience, it was during the Regan Administration that people in our allied countries (UK, France, etc...) began to question our national policies and grumble about them. Bush the senior ushered in the era of open dissent, Clinton ratcheted the rhetoric down a few notches and turned the focus to simply laughing at the President (what is is, etc...) while Bush the junior put us over the top in terms of both hatred of America and making a laughingstock of the office of the President abroad.

[innerSpaceman]

Nothing to do with this thread, but I completely disagree about "pride"

It's got nothing to do with how others regard you. By definition, it's how you regard yourself. Whether you choose to base your self-regard on how others regard you is optional. But the word refers only to self-regard.

[Moonliner]

Nothing to do with this thread, but I completely disagree about "pride"

It's got nothing to do with how others regard you. By definition, it's how you regard yourself. Whether you choose to base your self-regard on how others regard you is optional. But the word refers only to self-regard.

I was discussing "National pride" not personal. However in either case I think how my friends feel about me and my actions is very directly tied to my own sense of pride. If all my friends think I'm acting like a petulant child then my pride suffers.

Using an internal gauge separate from the outside world seems less like pride and more like Ego.

[CoasterMatt]

That's what my heart yearns for now - love and pride.
That's what my heart yearns for now - love and pride.

Start your journey early or maybe later
get your boots on

Look for rainbows
it's cloudy

Take your hairdryer
blow them all away.

In you I've found a story I want to keep hearing.
In you I see all colours
not just black or white.
In you I find a reason and hope for all dreamers

You are my fill
you're my supply of love and pride.
That's what my heart yearns for now - love and pride. . . .

Knowing
sensing
seeing
eating
sleeping
that's just being.
Touching
testing
loving
wanting and taking

more love and more pride.
In you I've found a story I want to keep hearing. . . .

I'm taking it round the world - some love and pride.
That's what my heart yearns for now - love and pride. . . .
That's what my heart yeanis for now - love and pride. . . .

:D

And now back to your regularly scheduled thread...

[Kevy Baby]

How did a discussion of a group of lions come into this thread?

[SacTown Chronic]

I am extremely proud to be a white American male. It took foresight and a lot of planning to get the conditions of my birth exactly as I wanted them.

[JWBear]

I haven't been proud to be an American since 3/19/03.

[wendybeth]

I am extremely proud to be a white American male. It took foresight and a lot of planning to get the conditions of my birth exactly as I wanted them.

Good one, Sac.:cheers:

[Cadaverous Pallor]

If you can be proud to be an American in the face of all the awful things America has done in the past few years, THAT troubles me.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYY73RO_egw

So she was proud to be an American as a child, went to Harvard and until just recently was not proud to be an American???

News flash: There are millions of people that feel exactly as she does and are poised and ready to pull that lever on Election Day. People are overwhelming tired with business as usual in this country and are finally starting to wake up and demand change.

[Kevy Baby]

If you can be proud to be an American in the face of all the awful things America has done in the past few years, THAT troubles me.I am proud to be an American, in spite of whatever has happened in the last few years. Why?

Because I live in a country where I can say that I don't like the government without fear of thugs knocking on my door in the middle of the night to drag me and my family away.

Because I live in a country where I am free to read anything I want without it being dictated by my government.

Because I live in a country that does not deny me access to certain parts of the internet.

Because I live in a country where I can have a say in who leads my country and who represents me in government. And while I am just one vote amongst millions, I still get to vote.

I would go on, but my time is limited.

[Snowflake]

Kevy you said it so well.

I would only add, speaking for myself, I am proud to be an American, but this does not mean I am proud of the current administration (or lots of things about past administrations).

I'm hopeful about the future, I have to be, I'm a glass half full person.

[wendybeth]

I would say I'm grateful and relieved for the things KB listed, but not necessarily proud. Things that make me proud are when people (and country) do good things, things that make me sit back and say "Oh, yeah- wtg!" I suppose I could find plenty to be proud of so far as my country, but in recent years I've been spending far more time cringing rather than glowing. I'm not alone, and tossing the tired old anti-patriotic mantle at people like me is not going to get anyone anywhere. It hasn't thus far, that's for certain.

[innerSpaceman]

To me, that's exactly like saying I'm proud to be a white American male because I was so talented in arranging it so.

Why be "proud" to have the rights that are inalienable?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Agreed with above. Mistaking pride for gratitude. Big difference. Pride should come from an active accomplishment of good things, not from innate states of existence.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I am proud to be an American, in spite of whatever has happened in the last few years.

I think the word you are looking for is "fortunate" or "lucky", and they are not synonymous with "pride". Pride is defined as: pleasure or satisfaction taken in something done by or belonging to oneself or believed to reflect credit upon oneself.

I'm not sure you did anything to earn the privilege to call yourself an American, you just got lucky enough to be born here. To me, it's like saying, I'm proud I won the lottery.

ETA: I see others beat me to the punch.

[Moonliner]

I am proud to be an American, in spite of whatever has happened in the last few years. Why?

Because I live in a country where I can say that I don't like the government without fear of thugs knocking on my door in the middle of the night to drag me and my family away.

Because I live in a country where I am free to read anything I want without it being dictated by my government.

Because I live in a country that does not deny me access to certain parts of the internet.

Because I live in a country where I can have a say in who leads my country and who represents me in government. And while I am just one vote amongst millions, I still get to vote.

I would go on, but my time is limited.

But there is cause for concern...

wikileaks.org <-- Can you get to that site? No. Your goverment has blocked (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/02/cayman-island-b.html) it.

[Alex]

It isn't a word that has distinct lines in colloquial use.

What is gay "pride"? Black "pride"? Why would I say to Lani at the completion of a marathon "I'm proud of you"? I can be proud of my good works and charitable giving.

Do all of those have a common element or are they just the same word used for completely different things?

For me, the closest I can come to saying I'm "proud" to be an American is in the same sense of "gay" or "black" pride. Where the meaning isn't so much pride in an accomplishment but pride in the act of refusing to be ashamed of something over which you have no control.

While I wouldn't really say I'm "proud" of being an American, despite attempts by others to feel I should be, I am also not ashamed. I'm not happy with much about this country but I also think it is, overall, at least as good as anywhere else and in certain ways much better (and in certain ways worse).

And to an extent, we are all active participants of this grand thing that is the United States and therefore a certain sense of participatory pride seems appropriate but for that I tend to associate it with certain things. I'm proud of X policy or Y action (particularly if I was somehow involved just beyond being within the sphere of jurisdiction when it happened) but it still seems to me like a really odd construction to just be proud of being an American.

Like I said above, for me the formulation is too much like saying "I'm proud I have a nose." The "pride" I feel at being an American is, I imagine, the same pride I'd feel at being German if I had been born in Germany.

But it is interesting because Lani's relatives were one who were so disappointed in their born culture that they actively sought to leave it and made that commitment and very actively chose to become Americans. So she and I discuss this every year or so, whether her being "proud to be an American" has a very different qualitative element than when someone else says the same thing.

[Kevy Baby]

But there is cause for concern...

wikileaks.org <-- Can you get to that site? No. Your goverment has blocked (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/02/cayman-island-b.html) it.You and your tin foil hat. One can easily go to that site. Just click here: http://wikileaks.be/wiki/Wikileaks

[Moonliner]

You and your tin foil hat. One can easily go to that site. Just click here: http://wikileaks.be/wiki/Wikileaks

Hey Mr. Head in the sand...

Your government, without opposing testimony, ordered an ISP to block all access to a web site and prevented it from moving the domain name to another server. Sure in this case there happen to be foreign mirrors. What if it happened to LoT because some foreign government got pissy about a post?

If you're OK with that then I guess it's my Tin hat VS your blind faith.

[Kevy Baby]

I would say I'm grateful and relieved for the things KB listed, but not necessarily proud. Things that make me proud are when people (and country) do good things, things that make me sit back and say "Oh, yeah- wtg!" I suppose I could find plenty to be proud of so far as my country, but in recent years I've been spending far more time cringing rather than glowing. I'm not alone, and tossing the tired old anti-patriotic mantle at people like me is not going to get anyone anywhere. It hasn't thus far, that's for certain.

To me, that's exactly like saying I'm proud to be a white American male because I was so talented in arranging it so.

Why be "proud" to have the rights that are inalienable?

Agreed with above. Mistaking pride for gratitude. Big difference. Pride should come from an active accomplishment of good things, not from innate states of existence.

I think the word you are looking for is "fortunate" or "lucky", and they are not synonymous with "pride". Pride is defined as: pleasure or satisfaction taken in something done by or belonging to oneself or believed to reflect credit upon oneself.

I'm not sure you did anything to earn the privilege to call yourself an American, you just got lucky enough to be born here. To me, it's like saying, I'm proud I won the lottery.Sorry, I disagree with all of you.

I AM proud.

I am proud because I actively participate in keeping all of the things I said in my post alive and well. Democracy does not continue to exist simply because it is my inalienable right. It continues to exist because I (and you) actively keep it alive. Whether we do that by complaining about or congratulating our current leadership, we still accomplish the same goal.

Yes, I am proud to be an American.

[innerSpaceman]

I hate to quibble with Alex (wait ... no i don't), but pride in refusing to do something is active pride. Refusal and acting upon that refusal is an activity that can be viewed, if one chooses, as an accomplishment.


As Alex pointed out, "Black Pride" and "Gay Pride" does not mean sitting around feeling darned good to be colored and/or queer, and so pleased that you arranged to be born that way.

[Kevy Baby]

Hey Mr. Head in the sand...

Your government, without opposing testimony, ordered an ISP to block all access to a web site and prevented it from moving the domain name to another server. Sure in this case there happen to be foreign mirrors. What if it happened to LoT because some foreign government got pissy about a post?

If you're OK with that then I guess it's my Tin hat VS your blind faith.Without reading the entire history of the whys and whatfors, I cannot argue with nor corroborate the claims. And I have no intention to. No system is perfect: you will find holes in it.

Besides, the site was taken down because they were posting BANKING DOCUMENTS with personal information. From what I can read of the one story, it appears that these documents were obtained illegally (they were not public documents). The site refused to take down the illegally acquired documents, so the court was not only right in allowing this site from being taken down but was (IMO) obligated top do so.

I may be reading a little more into the article than is actually there, but I feel confident that I am pretty close.

[BarTopDancer]

I am grateful to have been born in a country to which we have many of the freedoms that Kevy outlined for us. I am ashamed of the actions of our government and some of our population at home and abroad.

Here's how my thinking has changed over the years:

At 17 I received Canadian citizenship (I have dual). I didn't want it, didn't see any reason to have it, I was American, period. I have no identification with Canada other than my mom being born there. Mom's reasoning (foresight?) was that some day I may want to get a Canadian passport, it maybe safer traveling to Europe with it. Maybe one day I'd want to move there, etc...

Fast forward about 10 years (or 3 years ago). I am glad I have an option to get a Canadian passport. American's aren't looked that fondly upon overseas these days. I am glad I am able to move there without much hassle if I wanted to (I don't). Will I get a Canadian passport? Considering I am going to get an American one in a few days, probably not. But I am grateful to have the opportunity to do so if I wanted.

I am ashamed of our national reputation overseas. I am ashamed of what our government has done in and to Iraq. I am ashamed that freedoms have been eroded away at home. I am ashamed of how my countrymen act overseas. The sense of entitlement that this country has as a whole makes me nauseous. Am I going to move? No. If I were I would have done it already.

I am grateful to live in a nation that allows me to be ashamed of its governments actions. I hope we begin to do good, that our entitlement goes away and this country again becomes somewhere to be proud to be a part of.

[Strangler Lewis]

Exactly what Michelle Obama was trying to say.

[BarTopDancer]

Not sure if that was directed at my post, but if it was, I haven't even watched the video. youtube is blocked at work.

[Strangler Lewis]

Yes, it was, and, unfortunately, she did not similarly expand on her comments, but, as I said before, I assume she meant something along those lines.

[BarTopDancer]

Oh ok. I'll watch it tonight.

[CoasterMatt]

I can emigrate to Sweden if I want to.

They've got ice bars, and Balder (the best damned wooden rollercoaster on the face of the Earth).

But I'm proud to stay in America, with the occasional jaunt elsewhere.

[scaeagles]

I am proud to be an American.

I do not like everything our government does.

I am proud of my son. I am not proud that it is a constant battle to get him to study his spelling words until 8pm on the night before his spelling test.

I don't carewhat the rest of the world thinks about us. Most of the world is ruled by thugs, dictators, or socialists. I doubt the French really care what we think of France. I doubt the Saudis really care about what we think of Saudi Arabia. I doubt the Chinese really care about what we think about China. Why do we care? But if we do, it sure looks as if Africa loves Bush and America right now. Does that change anyone's opinion of Bush? I doubt it.

I am fortunate to have been born here in the U.S. of A. I am proud to be a part of the processes that keep our country free and strong.

And I'd mojo Kevy if I could. But I can't. So major freakin' visible mojo for him.

[Strangler Lewis]

Exactly what Michelle Obama was trying to say.

[Kevy Baby]

Exactly what Michelle Obama was trying to say.Yes, but was she trying to say it in HD?

[3894]

A couple of observations from the Wisconsin primary:

Wisconsin affirms the Iowa results: Obama does appeal and can lead an overwhelmingly white population. When the talking heads say that Hillary's constituency is "working class", that's code for "Archie Bunker racists". Wisconsin is full to the brim with people who proved yesterday that we have moved beyond the color barrier.

A large part of Hillary's constituency is said to be women 50 and older. I am 50 and received a couple of pro-Obama phone calls from live women. I received only recorded phone messages from the Hillary camp, including one in a man's voice from my former union, the American Federation of Teachers. Based on this, Obama's organization is smarter than Hillary's.

Both my kids, 15 and 18, like Obama so much that they've canvassed for him in the snow. That's no joke when the temp is 10 degrees and you're trudging door-to-door for four hours. My kids' enthusiasm for this candidate trumps any vestigal feelings of old-school feminist loyalty I may have towards Hillary.

Local Obama siting: he came to the YMCA in a nearby dinky rural town the other day to work out. It was all hush-hush and only known after the fact. We do have other private workout clubs but Obama worked out in a YMCA. Calculating or not, this resonates with the locals, many of whom have lost their jobs as paper mills close.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Oh, right, I started a thread for Obama enthusiasts. Forgot about that.

Helen, that's awesome about your kids. If I were their age I'd probably be doing the same (though I won't even compare weather conditions). I got an email from the Obama camp asking me to go to Texas to get out the vote. For a split second I considered it ;)

I am so glad to hear the returns from Wisconsin (yay Helen!) and Hawaii. A 17 point gap in WI, and a 52 point gap in HI (he is from there, after all).

:) :) :)

[scaeagles]

CP, are you suggesting that you don't want all aspects of Obama discussed here? If so, I'll step out, because i am not an Obama enthusiast.

But as that request hasn't been made yet....

I've been trying to really think about what bothers me about what Mrs. Obama said....she wasn't speaking off the cuff. It was a prepared comment. She had the time to review what she wanted to say and worded it this way anyway. This tells me that she isn't proud that we led the way to the fall of the Soviet Union - and if she doesn't believe it was because of the US and UK, that bothers me all the more. There are too many things the US does that are good to say she hasn't been proud of the US in her adult life. Unless she's only 20. Then I guess I could understand it a bit more.

[3894]

I've been trying to really think about what bothers me about what Mrs. Obama said....she wasn't speaking off the cuff. It was a prepared comment. She had the time to review what she wanted to say and worded it this way anyway. This tells me that she isn't proud that we led the way to the fall of the Soviet Union - and if she doesn't believe it was because of the US and UK, that bothers me all the more. There are too many things the US does that are good to say she hasn't been proud of the US in her adult life. Unless she's only 20. Then I guess I could understand it a bit more.

With all due respect, scaeagles, it's not rocket science. Mrs. Obama is an African-American woman. She was talking about living people who've endured Jim Crow laws, who thought that they'd never, ever see an African-American run for president in their lifetime.

It's a squeeze into those pink, pointy-toed pumps, but put yourself in her shoes. It takes a hell of a lot of love for your country to let your spouse run for president. It takes triple that if he's a black man and triple- prime assassination target.

Edited to add: The extreme right wing's attacks on the patriotism of other Americans is beyond tiresome, beyond boring, and right into past-date garbage.

[Kevy Baby]

Oh, right, I started a thread for Obama enthusiasts. Forgot about that.Sorry if I took away from your thread - it was not my intention. I tried to focus on responding to some things being said here and once it stopped; I stopped.

Sorry for the hijack.

[JWBear]

I think the Clinton campaign is starting to sound desperate.

[Stan4dSteph]

I doubt the French really care what we think of France.Maybe not, but they sure are interested in our election. They love to talk politics. Also, I think it's far more important to have a good foreign policy than saying he/she will fix the economy. In this age of global markets, there's not a lot a president can do to change things, but a bad foreign policy can do a lot of damage. Witness the past 8 years...

Not giving a crap about the rest of the world is an ignorant way to go about life.

[wendybeth]

I agree, JW- they are sounding a bit desperate. I hope things don't get too down and dirty; we really don't need any more mud-wallowing in this country. I keep hoping Obama doesn't rise to the bait and runs as clean a campaign as he can. Might be naive of me, but that's what I hope.

[Kevy Baby]

I agree, JW- they are sounding a bit desperate. I hope things don't get too down and dirty; we really don't need any more mud-wallowing in this country. I keep hoping Obama doesn't rise to the bait and runs as clean a campaign as he can. Might be naive of me, but that's what I hope.I join you in your naive hopes!

But if it comes down to Obama vs. McCain (which was my prediction a while back), I predict some ugly mudslinging from the extremist cons.

[Alex]

It was nice to see in McCain's speech last night that he has apparently endorsed Obama for the Democratic nomination.

[Snowflake]

I join you in your naive hopes!

But if it comes down to Obama vs. McCain (which was my prediction a while back), I predict some ugly mudslinging from the extremist cons.

I'll second your naive hopes and raise you a milkshake.

I think <Old English Font>There Will Be Mudslinging </Old English Font>

[scaeagles]

With all due respect, scaeagles, it's not rocket science. Mrs. Obama is an African-American woman. She was talking about living people who've endured Jim Crow laws, who thought that they'd never, ever see an African-American run for president in their lifetime.

It's a squeeze into those pink, pointy-toed pumps, but put yourself in her shoes. It takes a hell of a lot of love for your country to let your spouse run for president. It takes triple that if he's a black man and triple- prime assassination target.

Edited to add: The extreme right wing's attacks on the patriotism of other Americans is beyond tiresome, beyond boring, and right into past-date garbage.

Hmmm....I dont recall Jim Crow laws during her adult life.....she said during her adult life. She has obviously been so downtrodden (I'm being sarcastic with that in case it didn't come across). She didn't say she didn't love her country. She said there was nothing in the last 26 years (she's 44) that she's been proud of. That's ridiculous and after thinking about it, I make no apology for calling her out about it. She said it twice during the day in two different locations. She meant exactly what she said.

And I'm not going to fall for the extreme right wing attack on Patriotism rhetoric. I did no such thing except to point out a major and world changing historical event. I didn't put words in her mouth.

[Morrigoon]

So Steph, what's the foreign read on the election, then?

[3894]

She said there was nothing in the last 26 years (she's 44) that she's been proud of. That's ridiculous and after thinking about it, I make no apology for calling her out about it. She said it twice during the day in two different locations. She meant exactly what she said.


Mrs. Obama said, "Let me tell you, 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."

You can't see that she's talking about a political process that excluded African-Americans until recently????

I did no such thing except to point out a major and world changing historical event. I didn't put words in her mouth.

But you continue to divorce her words from her context. It's shrill and it's dishonest.

[mousepod]

I know I voted for Clinton (with no regrets). I know that I will support Obama should he get the nomination. But if he's the candidate, here's the kind of thing that will make me worried...

clip from Chris Matthews' Hardball (http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=d1766447-d990-4b3a-8baa-81c276111c30).

[scaeagles]

But you continue to divorce her words from her context. It's shrill and it's dishonest.

Putting words in her mouth such as she's talking about Jim Crow laws - which most certainly were not in existance during her adult life - is completely in context and completely honest, then?

I know exactly what she said. This is the first time in the last 26 years she's been proud of her country. I am taking nothing out of context whatsoever, while you are linking her words in some sort of odd spin to laws that have not existed during the time frame she references.

[3894]

Putting words in her mouth such as she's talking about Jim Crow laws - which most certainly were not in existance during her adult life - is completely in context and completely honest, then?

I know exactly what she said. This is the first time in the last 26 years she's been proud of her country. I am taking nothing out of context whatsoever, while you are linking her words in some sort of odd spin to laws that have not existed during the time frame she references.


Put yourself in her shoes. She is talking about her own frame of reference. My advice is to attack Obama on more substantive grounds, if you disagree with him.

[Alex]

This is the first time in the last 26 years she's been proud of her country. I am taking nothing out of context whatsoever, while you are linking her words in some sort of odd spin to laws that have not existed during the time frame she references.

Well, according to the quote you gave she said this is the first time she is really proud of her country. Maybe she was just mildly proud the rest of the time. Or just passively proud.

[scaeagles]

Put yourself in her shoes. She is talking about her own frame of reference. My advice is to attack Obama on more substantive grounds, if you disagree with him.

I have pointed out disagreements. I do not regard them as attacks.

I didn't bring this up, and in fact, I didn't jump on it at all.

No need to go more into it. I simply commented on something being discussed but apparently struck a nerve.

[sleepyjeff]

You can't see that she's talking about a political process that excluded African-Americans until recently????



How so?

Her entire life African-Americans have had the vote. They have limited themselves to one party who takes that for granted....whose fault is that?

Hispanics, by voting in both directions, have made themselves more powerfull......maybe there's a lesson there somewhere.

[Morrigoon]

Only in this century*... remember that in the 1800s the Republicans were the more friendly party to them and the "solid south" was made up of people still flying the stars and bars.

(By "this century", I mean since 1900 or so)

[JWBear]

Only in this century*... remember that in the 1800s the Republicans were the more friendly party to them and the "solid south" was made up of people still flying the stars and bars.

(By "this century", I mean since 1900 or so)

You can extend that all the way up until the 1920's. The parties didn't start switching rolls in any meaningful way until the depression and The New Deal.

Theodore Rooseveldt was Republican, and many of his progressive causes and ideals would get him labled a liberal if he were alive today. (Just one example out of many.)

[scaeagles]

Theodore Rooseveldt was Republican, and many of his progressive causes and ideals would get him labled a liberal if he were alive today. (Just one example out of many.)

JFK was a Democrat, yet his tax policies would get him labeled as a tax cuts for the wealthy conservative if he were alive today.

[Morrigoon]

Heh, good point

[sleepyjeff]

JFK was a Democrat, yet his tax policies would get him labeled as a tax cuts for the wealthy conservative if he were alive today.

Let's Play Name that President....

Known for funny ways he pronounced certain words.

Used fathers influence to get into a certain branch of the Military.

Family was good friends to Senator Joseph McCarthy.

Won the Presidency by the narrowest of margins.

Launched an attack on a Country which had not attacked the US.

Expanded funding for education.

Made cutting taxes an administration priority.

His younger brother, often touted as a Presidential hopeful himself, was also very active in politics.

:eek:

[Alex]

Zachary Taylor?

McCarthy was, as is the wont of evil, really old.

[Morrigoon]

sleepyjeff: ah yes, but only Kennedy would admit to being a doughnut :p

[sleepyjeff]

sleepyjeff: ah yes, but only Kennedy would admit to being a doughnut :p


Funny, except that he said those words in Berlin....and in so doing never actually admited to being a doughnut(because citizens of Berlin, unlike most Germans, did not use the term Berliner when describing a doughnut)....they called them Pfannkuchens.

[NirvanaMan]

I think the chosen marketing slogan of "Yes we can" is telling in itself.


His VP and supporters can run under the slogan "You can do it, we can help."

Though I find it inspiring to see people so inspired, I think I grew jaded on politics after peaking too early. I was a strong Regan Republican through elementary school. Was ok on Bush the first (though I preferred Steve Forbes and Perot in subsequent elections) and eventually watched as the Republican party and the Democratic party merged yet still somehow hated each other.

All they want to do is raise my taxes, fund pork barrel projects, and take away my freedoms and rights. Thought I suppose they are divided on how and what they want to tax, what waste they want to fund and which freedoms they want to take away, but to me, it's really all the same.

Change? Change what exactly? I only want a President that will do two things:

Let me keep my own money
Let me keep my guns (or right to own them)Outside of that, I guess I don't care too much anymore. The most powerful man (or woman) in the world really isn't all that powerful.

Tax the wealthy? What is wealthy? Regarding the recent tax cuts, some have said that wealthy = $100,000 a year. Hah! Please. Maybe in some rundown town of Hope, Arkansas, but not in SoCal. Of course geographical considerations are rarely taken into account.

Anyway, what was I talking about? Oh yeah. Jaded. Feel totally blah about the election still. Don't like the Republican candidate much though I guess his views correlate most with mine. Hillary seems evil. Obama is inspirational, of course I have seen lot's of inspirational speakers at my time at Fortune 500 companies. Not sure I would vote for any of them. That and I disagree with 70% of his views.

But, I have to vote cause well, I can't complain if I don't. And I will definitely want to complain about whichever of the 3 eventually takes the office. Full-well knowing that their impact is rather limited. Unless they try to take my guns or money. You bastards! Leave those money and gun caches were you found 'em.

[NirvanaMan]

In other words, if Hilllary were a man and McCain were a woman, I would likely vote for McCain.


It's your vote, but that seems as ridiculous to me as the women who voted for Clinton because he was "cute".

I'm offended that sexism or racism would factor into this election and voting for either simply because of gender or skin color does just that. Just the same as not voting for one of them due to their race or skin color.

[innerSpaceman]

Well, you just said above that the President does not have much power, and I agree. To me, it's a figurehead job. And so symboligy is an important element to me.

[NirvanaMan]

Well, somebody has to pay for Mr Bush's little war. Personally, I'd rather it be the rich and the big corporations than the poor and middle class.

Who are these rich and big corporations exactly, and who do they employ? Is it all rich people that work for the rich corporations? Seems like that wouldn't really work. One would likely need to have middle class folks employed in a large corporation, but perhaps they exist just the same. If so, please post the top 5 so I can ready some resumes.

Thanks!

[NirvanaMan]

Well, you just said above that the President does not have much power, and I agree. To me, it's a figurehead job. And so symboligy is an important element to me.


I was hoping someone was going to point that out. I was expecting it to be GD and expecting it to be done so in a harsh tone, but just happy that someone bothers reading my ramblings just the same. :)

[Alex]

If the president is just a figurehead then what is the point of hating the current one since he can't possibly be responsible for any of the things you hate?

[scaeagles]

Indeed, Alex. But I regard the President as much more than a figurehead. The power of the veto, submission of budgets, commander in chief, major director of foreign policy....these are all powerful things.

[NirvanaMan]

If the president is just a figurehead then what is the point of hating the current one since he can't possibly be responsible for any of the things you hate?

Burn!!!!

[lashbear]

I only want a President that will do two things:

Let me keep my own money
Let me keep my guns (or right to own them)You bastards! Leave those money and gun caches were you found 'em.
Fine !! Vote for Charlton Heston. :p

One would likely need to have middle class folks employed in a large corporation
*waves Paw at NirvanaMan*

[Not Afraid]

His VP and supporters can run under the slogan "You can do it, we can help."


There are quite a few marting campaign slogans that could be absconded for use by politics. There's a reason they're both called campaigns - it's just a bunch of marketing (which is why I am also very jaded - I see the marketing as too obvious).

How about:

You're in good hands with Obama
Just do it.
We try harder
I'd rather fight than switch. (McCain, perhaps?)
We've come a long way, baby.
Try it, you'll like it.
Think outside the box

Or, "With a name like Clinton, it has to be good"

[Strangler Lewis]

Since we've had any number of president-led military actions since World War II without a formal congressional declaration of war, I don't see how it can be said that the President is a figurehead.

[innerSpaceman]

As I've elaborated before, I think the figurehead status is in relation to domestic issues. Oh, I believe the Administration can have a big influence on Congress, and good use of the bully pulpit can be very powerful to the populace.


But I mostly think the power of the president lies in foreign affairs. So once I've determined that neither candidate A nor B will be Atilla the Hun, I don't much care which one wins. Hence, i pick the girl.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

CP, are you suggesting that you don't want all aspects of Obama discussed here? If so, I'll step out, because i am not an Obama enthusiast.Sorry if I took away from your thread - it was not my intention. I tried to focus on responding to some things being said here and once it stopped; I stopped.

Sorry for the hijack.Eh, no worries. I knew when I started it that my "hey who digs Obama" thread would shortly become "let's post our disparate political views in a show of supposed debate but no one persuades anyone else" which I still dislike. Even as I am enthused about this race, I continue to stay out of political threads (oh wait, there's just one, and now this one, of course) so excuse me if I don't do much "debating".

But if he's the candidate, here's the kind of thing that will make me worried...

clip from Chris Matthews' Hardball (http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=d1766447-d990-4b3a-8baa-81c276111c30).News flash - one idiot didn't do his homework for a freakin' interview. :rolleyes:

I looked at the usual sources -Thomas (http://thomas.loc.gov/) etal - but I found this very cool site that compiles all sorts of data.

Clinton (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300022):Statistics: Hillary Clinton has sponsored 354 bills since Jan 22, 2001, of which 307 haven't made it out of committee (Extremely Poor) and 2 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Clinton has co-sponsored 1723 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers). Obama (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629):Statistics: Barack Obama has sponsored 129 bills since Jan 4, 2005, of which 120 haven't made it out of committee (Poor) and 1 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Obama has co-sponsored 545 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers).

The reason they did so "poorly" was due to being in the minority party. All of the site's wording aside - You mean to tell me that during all those years of experience, she didn't do much more than he did?

I only want a President that will do two things:

Let me keep my own money
Let me keep my guns (or right to own them)

<snip>

But, I have to vote cause well, I can't complain if I don't. You're where I was after the Contract with America fell apart. All you can do is vote Libertarian, because they're the only ones that agree with you. Everyone else wants your money for one reason or another. Have fun, I know I did.

[Not Afraid]

Clinton (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300022):Obama (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629):The reason they did so "poorly" was due to being in the minority party. All of the site's wording aside - You mean to tell me that during all those years of experience, she didn't do much more than he did?


By "all those years of experience" you mean the 4 years Clinton was a Senat orbefore Obama became one?

[Cadaverous Pallor]

By "all those years of experience" you mean the 4 years Clinton was a Senat orbefore Obama became one?Yes, I do. I'll say it again - You mean to tell me, with all those years of experience, she didn't do much more than he did?

[Not Afraid]

You know, I have to say that nothing has turned me off from Obama more than the Hillary bashing that has taken place here. Change? What change? It's the same old BS. It make me glad I voted for Clinton - even if it was a difficult decision. Now, I'm pretty happy with my choice.

[Strangler Lewis]

I voted for Obama. However, I can't say I'm moved by the excited people behind him. Reminds me of the Ross Perot phenomenon. In general, there are too many people in this country who can't be "energized" to vote unless their candidate is "the next big thing" or they're being asked to "throw the bums out" in some term limits vote. Yes, the Democrats and Republicans are too much alike, but there are meaningful differences. A Libertarian or a Green vote is just a lazy, whiny protest vote that, as we saw with Nader, can have damaging consequences.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

You know, I have to say that nothing has turned me off from Obama more than the Hillary bashing that has taken place here. Change? What change? It's the same old BS. It make me glad I voted for Clinton - even if it was a difficult decision. Now, I'm pretty happy with my choice.Did you want to respond to the actual statistics I quoted, or did you want to repeat that you like Clinton? I already read that part a few posts ago. I fail to see how my post is bashing, I'm quoting statistics.

A Libertarian or a Green vote is just a lazy, whiny protest vote that, as we saw with Nader, can have damaging consequences.Wow. "Either yer Red or yer Blue, and if ya don't fit, yer a whiner and a troublemaker!" Oh yeah, Us vs. Them, that's always been the way to fixing things.

Purple and Proud

[Not Afraid]

Neither.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

It was nice to see in McCain's speech last night that he has apparently endorsed Obama for the Democratic nomination.Ok, 'splain yourself. I have to admit I didn't hear the speech.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Neither.So what exactly were you reacting to? Where's the bashing?

[Alex]

Ok, 'splain yourself. I have to admit I didn't hear the speech.

In his victory speech last night he made several statements against Obama but nothing against Clinton. So he was acting (or pretending to) on the assumption that Obama will be his opponent.

[scaeagles]

I am not concerned about how many bills were passed or cosponsored or whatever. I frankly don't understand why that's a measuring stick, but I prefer the mantra of that government is best that governs least.

I would argue that the candidacy of Perot had damaging consequences.

I tend to agree with McCain's assertion of "eloquent but empty". It's all hype and a packaged image designed, IMO, to hide his far left agenda and views. There isn't a dimes worth of difference between Clinton and Obama in terms of agenda. They'll go about it differently, but it's all the same in the end.

[Strangler Lewis]

"Either yer Red or yer Blue, and if ya don't fit, yer a whiner and a troublemaker!" Oh yeah, Us vs. Them, that's always been the way to fixing things.

Purple and Proud

The sad reality is that it's every voter's duty to vote for the least worst candidate who stands a legitimate chance of winning. Voting for Perot in '92--which helped elect Clinton--was not a garbage vote the same way voting for Nader in 2000 or Perot in '96 was. It appeared for a while that Perot in '92 had, scarily, a chance to win.

Green and Libertarian candidates have effectively zero national profile. Nader, for all his good work, was a celebrity candidate. Unless someone who identifies as Green or Libertarian is willing to devote all their free time to building the profile of these parties in the public consciousness, simply pulling the lever for them every four years is whiny "throw the bums out" stuff and is no better than staying home.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I still believe that the majority of candidates from the DemocraticRepublicans are all the same and it doesn't matter much who wins. One side is good one way, one side is good the other way. Things have changed somewhat with the Bush administration so I'm thinking slightly differently, but in the long run they're two sides of the same coin.

It isn't my duty to do anything for or against the two corrupted useless parties that trade power every few years.

And yes, I'm aware Obama is a Democrat, and yes, I foolishly and idealistically have been caught up in his aura, and believe he may actually be different. Yes, you may point a finger at me if things go horribly wrong.

But I don't think they will....and even if they do, I think it would have been worse with any of the other candidates.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Green and Libertarian candidates have effectively zero national profile. Nader, for all his good work, was a celebrity candidate. Unless someone who identifies as Green or Libertarian is willing to devote all their free time to building the profile of these parties in the public consciousness, simply pulling the lever for them every four years is whiny "throw the bums out" stuff and is no better than staying home.

Fair enough. I'll admit, actually, that I was a very active Green member in college. I canvassed, I was vocal, I did my best to bring about change because I was disgusted in the two-party system and felt limited by their candidates. But when Gore lost (though, not in the states where I canvassed, heh) I changed my tune. My priorities changed. Because no, I don't see the two parties as identical. No parties, no candidates are ever going to match my beliefs 100%, but the Dems currently share my priorities of social programs and foreign policies and general liberal thought, while the Pubs rarely do.

[sleepyjeff]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj4VK9wVAi0

Gotta love MSNBC;)

[innerSpaceman]

The more the Obama momentum picks up, the more I find it the most hollow, TV-centric, baseless "change" and "hope" substance-less but charming tripe-filled campaign.


It's begining to scare me that it's just going to be a jump-on-the-bandwagon ride to the presidency.

[Scrooge McSam]

Wow! Wish Chris had that kind of fire in 2000 and 2004.

This might be a very different world.

[scaeagles]

Chris just does what Bill and Hillary tell him to.

[SacTown Chronic]

Barack Obama's 2002 Iraq War speech. (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech)


He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.


And here (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237) is a rebuttal from Clinton and McCain






Quite frankly, that's all the substance I need.

[Alex]

Chris just does what Bill and Hillary tell him to.

Previously it seemed to me that Chris Matthews was practically wetting himself in excitement over Obama's ascendancy. I thought he was about to break out in tears after Obama's Iowa victory speech.

[scaeagles]

I found his "makes a chill run up my leg" comment to be a little creepy.

[Morrigoon]

I voted for Obama. However, I can't say I'm moved by the excited people behind him. Reminds me of the Ross Perot phenomenon. In general, there are too many people in this country who can't be "energized" to vote unless their candidate is "the next big thing" or they're being asked to "throw the bums out" in some term limits vote. Yes, the Democrats and Republicans are too much alike, but there are meaningful differences. A Libertarian or a Green vote is just a lazy, whiny protest vote that, as we saw with Nader, can have damaging consequences.

Actually, I supported Ross Perot because I liked what he had to say about his plans for the country. I liked the corporate approach, the pie charts, etc. I was sorely disappointed in him when he dropped out of the race because I thought he was on the right track.

I also don't think that voting Libertarian is a lazy whiny protest vote. I'm someone who would normally (and has in the past) vote for the Republican candidate. This time around, I may vote for the Democrat, and I may not, depending on the primary. But while I may or may not feel like "helping" the Democrat win (with the understanding that in a "decided" state like California my vote means very little anyway), I may also not feel like "helping" the Republican. By voting Libertarian, I can put the weight of my all-important "swing" vote behind what I believe in, because candidates who hope to gain my vote will have to appeal to that through their actions. The more of us who "throw away" our votes by voting for smaller parties, the more candidates will pay attention to that party's values in hopes of wooing us to vote for them.

The only way a person can get a politician's attention is through their vote. It is the politician's bread and butter. By being willing to vote for a team that cannot win rather than giving up and giving my vote to whoever I can settle for in the major parties, I make them work for my vote.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

A public thank you to Sac for posting info. I'm beginning to wonder where all those LoT Obama voters went.

Regarding sound bites - they're sound bites. All sides have them. As always, you want facts, you have to read up on things.

[Moonliner]

I'm beginning to wonder where all those LoT Obama voters went.


Currently I'm an ABC voter (Anyone But Clinton) . Which puts me squarely in Obama's camp. As soon as the wicked witch of the east gets a little more cold water on her and Obama gets the nomination then it will be time to take a hard look at his youthful exuberance VS McCain's experience.

I also wonder how many of Obama's votes are from the ABC party and what will happen to them once Clinton is out of the race.

[scaeagles]

That's a good point, Moon. While there are the Obama groupies, there are also those that don't want Clinton to be the nominee.

[Morrigoon]

Here's the problem: a vote for McCain is a vote for business as usual. Not that McCain is the same as Bush necessarily, but the party as a whole will view a vote for McCain as a vote for Republicans and a vote for continuing to do what they've been doing.

So maybe this year I'm an ABCotGOP

[Ghoulish Delight]

That can be said of any candidate. And some (I'd venture most, by virtue of party affiliation) would vote for Obama in a general election and some would vote for McCain. Likely balanced out by all of the "Anyone but Romney or Hucakbee" voters on the other side.

For what it's worth, Obama still holds a lead over McCain in national straw polls, while Clinton is now trailing.

[innerSpaceman]

i gotta admit: Clinton would bring out Republican voters, and Obama will not inspire that much vitriol. So far in the primaries, Democratic voters have vastly outnumbered Repulicans.

I'd hate to upset that particular apple cart. So on a strategical vote, I'd vote for Obama. On my equally non-substantive historical symbology vote, I'd vote for Clinton.

Many people will be voting for electoral strategy. Are those votes any more vapid than my gender-based vote?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Many people will be voting for electoral strategy. Are those votes any more vapid than my gender-based vote?
Agreed. I've always held that voting based on the pundit-defined notion of "electablilty" is not only patently lame, but ultimately self-sabotaging as it tends to lead to selecting the blandest candidate possible (John Kerry much?).

[cirquelover]

I'm beginning to wonder where all those LoT Obama voters went.



I'm still here, I'm just not much of a debater so I stay out of the way most of the time:blush:

Usually being from Oregon, your vote doesn't count in the primaries anyway. This year may actually be different though, we'll have to wait and see.

Gary is the one in our family who was a debater and follows all the politics of the day. Some days I'm so busy with Zach I'm lucky if I see a tv all day! LoT is my one vice and I try to get here most days. I like LoT better than politics!

[BarTopDancer]

A public thank you to Sac for posting info. I'm beginning to wonder where all those LoT Obama voters went.

Regarding sound bites - they're sound bites. All sides have them. As always, you want facts, you have to read up on things.

I'm here. I am a LoT Obama voter because I like what he has to say and I am hopeful it is implemented. I am not an ABC or an Anti-Rep voter. I am an Obama voter.

[Kevy Baby]

Had I been able to, I would have voted for Obama in the primaries. Primarily because of the Democratic choices, I felt he had the best promise to lead our country.

But secondarily because I think Clinton is dangerous. (I wasn't really well versed on the rest of the Democratic candidates.)

[Strangler Lewis]

With rare exceptions, I vote Democrat. Given the chance, I would have voted for Richardson in the primary. On merit alone, much as I like Obama, I probably would have preferred Clinton. Nonetheless, I believe, rightly or wrongly, that if she is the nominee, we'll be fighting the Viet Nam War all over again with McCain on one side and Hillary and Bill on the "hippie side" (with Cheney, Rove, Gingrich and, yes, W.) Not a recipe for success.

We don't get that with Obama. Of course, we might get something else. The right wing operatives might run "Harold, call me" ads featuring clips or parodies of "Blazing Saddles" or "Mandingo." We'll see.

[scaeagles]

I'm here. I am a LoT Obama voter because I like what he has to say and I am hopeful it is implemented. I am not an ABC or an Anti-Rep voter. I am an Obama voter.

What is implemented? Hope? Change? Promising everyone anything and everything under the sun?

[scaeagles]

The right wing operatives might run "Harold, call me" ads featuring clips or parodies of "Blazing Saddles" or "Mandingo." We'll see.


Already getting left wing operatives at the NY Times hitting McCain. And I'm not even a McCain fan.

[JWBear]

Another Obama voter here, but with the caveat that he wasn't my first choice.

[Moonliner]

Already getting left wing operatives at the NY Times hitting McCain. And I'm not even a McCain fan.

So given a McCain / Obama choice what are you thinking about doing?


Even if you decide not to decide you still have made a choice

[BarTopDancer]

What is implemented? Hope? Change? Promising everyone anything and everything under the sun?

Getting out of Iraq (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#bring-home)for starters

Fixing our education system (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/). Let's teach education to learn, not teach to a test that basically leaves kids without knowledge to succeed in life so schools can keep their funding.

Keeping Net Neutrality (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/#open-internet)

Fixing our immigration system (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/immigration/) without screwing over our economy

These are the things I think can be done. These are the changes I hope are made. These are the things I believe, if they can be changed, it will be by him.

Then there is the whole gay marriage, stem cell research and abortion stance that is very important to me as well.



About.com
("http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm")

Barack Obama and Gay Marriage/ Civil Unions: Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

On stem cell research and abortion (quote is stem cell research, more info on his abortion stance at that same link:



OnTheIssues.Org (http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm)

Barack Obama believes we owe it to the American public to explore the potential of stem cells to treat the millions of people suffering from debilitating and life threatening diseases. Stem cells hold the promise of treatments and cures for more than 70 major diseases and conditions such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease, spinal cord injuries, and diabetes. As many as 100 million Americans may benefit from embryonic stem cell research. As president, Obama would:

* Promote Embryonic Stem Cell Research
* Support Medical Advancement and Innovation
* Expand the Number of Stem Cell Lines Available for Research
* Ensure Ethical Standards

Obama introduced legislation in the Illinois Senate to ensure that only those embryos that would otherwise be discarded could be used and that donors would have to provide written consent for the use of the embryos.

[Strangler Lewis]

Already getting left wing operatives at the NY Times hitting McCain. And I'm not even a McCain fan.

You are speaking, sir, of journalists at the paper of record.

McCain cheated frequently on his first wife. Wouldn't surprise me if he cheated on his second. That it might be with a lobbyist suggests a particular lapse in judgment, but not enough for me to truly care.

[scaeagles]

It is obvious due to shrinking circulation that many people are losing respect for the poorly named paper of record.

Both sides deny. No evidence. No evidence of votes cast against principle to support her lobbying.

Good Lord. I don't even like McCain and I have to defend him from stupidity.

[scaeagles]

[QUOTE=BarTopDancer;193893
Fixing our immigration system (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/immigration/) without screwing over our economy[/QUOTE]

Because he'll leave screwing the economy to the other portions of his "plan".

I love how he claims to be able to provide "affordable" this or "affordable" that. How?

Much of these things are nothing new. Sorry, but they aren't. The only difference is he gives good speeches.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

For the record - the Times' "story" on McCain is a joke. :rolleyes: What a load of heresay crap.

[Alex]

I'd like to think that was an intentional blending of hearsay and heresy.

[BarTopDancer]

Because he'll leave screwing the economy to the other portions of his "plan".

If we tighten our boarders, the migrant farm workers, the people who do the grunt work most American's won't do for the pay will disappear. Like it or not, the pisspoor wages that undocumented workers are paid to work in fields keep the cost of our produce low. I believe that he will find a way to tighten our boarders without the ripple effect of higher wages paying to documented workers.

I love how he claims to be able to provide "affordable" this or "affordable" that. How?

Ending the war will free up a few billion dollars.

Much of these things are nothing new. Sorry, but they aren't. The only difference is he gives good speeches.

They may be the same ideas and he may give good speeches, but I believe he is the only person running who I believe will do his damndest to try. He's the only one with a chance of nomination who hasn't been around the greenbelt a few dozen times and now has people with their hands out looking for their payback.

[Not Afraid]

I think the thing that scares me the most about Obama is his talk. It's not that I don't like what he's saying, I just think he's going to end up in a classic over-promise and under-deliver situation. I've seen it too many times and I don't believe he CAN do it. I would rather the President be a little more realistic and not so pie in the sky.

[Kevy Baby]

I'm still waiting for the 61st Amendment to be passed.

[wendybeth]

What is implemented? Hope? Change? Promising everyone anything and everything under the sun?

I mostly like the idea of Iraq not becoming another Hundred Year's War. We all know how well that worked out for Europe.

It's Obama's idealism that I like. Sure, he may not get things done that he wants to do, but he's not the only ('Read my lips' ring a bell?) person to have ever made (gasp!) campaign promises that probably will never come to fruition. McCain, on the other hand, comes out as a tired, jaded old soldier- not that there's anything wrong with that, but hardly uplifting and inspirational.

[Alex]

I think the thing that scares me the most about Obama is his talk. It's not that I don't like what he's saying, I just think he's going to end up in a classic over-promise and under-deliver situation. I've seen it too many times and I don't believe he CAN do it. I would rather the President be a little more realistic and not so pie in the sky.

But don't he and Clinton both essentially make all of the same promises? He just does it with better speeches.

Is it that you think she is more likely to deliver?

[scaeagles]

he's not the only ('Read my lips' ring a bell?) person to have ever made (gasp!) campaign promises that probably will never come to fruition.

If elected, I hope none of his campaign promises come to fruition.

[innerSpaceman]

But don't he and Clinton both essentially make all of the same promises? He just does it with better speeches.

Is it that you think she is more likely to deliver?
Not to speak for Not Afraid, but it was that other Clinton that's exactly why we don't feel like getting fooled again.

It's quite a bit easier to give inspirational speeaches and even have your heart in the right place. Quite another to perform in that fashion once esconced in the White House.

We've been there, seen that.


Obama's sweet but hot air just does not impress me.

[BarTopDancer]

If elected, I hope none of his campaign promises come to fruition.

None?

You want to see us in Iraq, our children failing because of teaching to "the test", borders remain open and the internet become for fee free-for-all.

Wow. :( I fear for our future.

Oh wait. That's why I'm voting for change and for someone who can bring change about.

[Not Afraid]

But don't he and Clinton both essentially make all of the same promises? He just does it with better speeches.


Essentially? Yes. They really aren't that much different of a package if you take away the personalities. He's just got a better marketing machine behind him and is a more "personable" guy. That doesn't sway me much because, I'm looking for a good president, not a best friend.


Is it that you think she is more likely to deliver?

Who knows, but she's had a bird's-eye view of the presidential seat and I think that will be very helpful to her should she win.

[Alex]

Not to speak for Not Afraid, but it was that other Clinton that's exactly why we don't feel like getting fooled again.

It's quite a bit easier to give inspirational speeaches and even have your heart in the right place. Quite another to perform in that fashion once esconced in the White House.

We've been there, seen that.


Obama's sweet but hot air just does not impress me.

But this still doesn't make sense to me. You were burned once by Bill Clinton but you'll take the person claiming that legacy as her own, who will return him to the White House in at least a significant advisory role, and who was actually part of what you feel burned by over the one who, as you says, represents what you found so exciting the last time.

It looks to me like you're saying that you'll take the one you know will be disappointing since by knowing that it will make the disappointment less over the one that will have the most room to disappoint for having raised expectations in the first place. Essentially that you're saying "I'd rather have this really dry bland piece of cake simply because I know it is dry an bland instead of that other really delicious looking piece of cake because it might turn out to be dry and bland.

In terms of what either can accomplish I don't really see why there is any great expectation for either of them. Either the victory of a Democrat will sweep in a sufficient majority in Congress to overcome filibuster, in which case either of them should be able to do whatever they want, especially in the exuberant first 18 months, or it won't in which case neither of them will be able to do anything in particular unless the president has the ability to impassion the middle to their cause.

I must say that as someone on the outside of the Democratic party I really don't see the calculus where Obama isn't preferable in almost every way since it seems to me that at worst Obama ends up being what we pretty much know Clinton will be.

[blueerica]

Wow, I guess I'm just not all that pumped about this election.

[wendybeth]

You know, with the direction the economy is going and the state of the nation in general, I must say I wouldn't be heartbroken if the Repub's took it. I mean, at some point they've got to lay off the Clinton's Fault maneuver and accept that they've really ****ed things up. I really don't know if anyone can clean this mess up anytime soon, and whoever takes over is going to look like crap by the end of the first year. Might as well remain the Repub's in that case.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

You know, with the direction the economy is going and the state of the nation in general, I must say I wouldn't be heartbroken if the Repub's took it. I mean, at some point they've got to lay off the Clinton's Fault maneuver and accept that they've really ****ed things up. I really don't know if anyone can clean this mess up anytime soon, and whoever takes over is going to look like crap by the end of the first year. Might as well remain the Repub's in that case.

I completely understand where you are coming from and in some cases, agree. But McCain has clearly stated more than once that "there will be more wars" and that 100-year occupation is just fine with him. As much as I would like to see the pubs have to face up to their own mess, the possibility exists that they could also make things a whole lot worse, and I can't take that gamble.

[scaeagles]

You know, with the direction the economy is going and the state of the nation in general, I must say I wouldn't be heartbroken if the Repub's took it. I mean, at some point they've got to lay off the Clinton's Fault maneuver and accept that they've really ****ed things up. I really don't know if anyone can clean this mess up anytime soon, and whoever takes over is going to look like crap by the end of the first year. Might as well remain the Repub's in that case.

So the Repubs can't blame Clinton for his mistakes, but dems can blame Bush for his mistakes? You said the Repubs messed things up and whomever is elected will look bad. Won't you be crying "it's Bush's fault" the same as I did about the things that I thought were Clinton's fault?

Of course you will.

[scaeagles]

None?

You want to see us in Iraq, our children failing because of teaching to "the test", borders remain open and the internet become for fee free-for-all.

Wow. :( I fear for our future.

Oh wait. That's why I'm voting for change and for someone who can bring change about.

Have you stopped beating your wife? In other words, I disagree with the premise of your argument. YOu seem to think that Obama is the only person - despite his IMMENSE lack of experience - that can accomplish goals and they must be done his way, and anyone who doesn't agree with how he wishes to do them must be against the ideas themselves.

I'd love for us to be out of Iraq, but think he will cause harm in how he does it. Of course I don't want dumb kids, but I don't think money will fix it (nor most of his suggestions). His idea of border control is vague at best and I don't trust him on it. And I'm not educated enough on his internet ideas, to be frank, to make a judgement.

Obama makes me fear for the future. Yes, indeed.

[SacTown Chronic]

Wait, now we want an experienced Washington insider as president? How come I didn't get the memo?

[scaeagles]

You can be an outsider and get my vote. I voted Forbes in 2000.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

The idea that people count time spent as First Lady as experience baffles me. It also pisses me off. No one elected her to anything then. If Bill had appointed her to his cabinet or something, fine. Other than that, I think the whole First Lady/First Gentleman thing should be external and decorative and nothing more. Perhaps if the bumper stickers had read "Bill, Hillary and Al '92" it would have been more honest.

[innerSpaceman]

Hillary was no ordinary first lady. She mastered quite an efficient organization. In fact, her experience in the White House leads me to expect that her first 180 days wouldn't be the fratboy disaster that Bill's was - of incompetently trying to set up a slate-clean presidential administration.

I think Hillary's experience as an extraordinary first lady with a shadow administration, plus the lessons learned from experiencing first-hand her husband's failures ... would lead to a crackerjack operation from the get-go that would hit the ground running.

Of course, I'm greatly troubled by her floundering campaign organization, where she seems to have the Dubya modus operandi of rewarding loyalty over competence. In that sense, I think she is disqualifying herself from running a presidential adminstration with each passing news day.


But Obama's going to have to start from scratch. And though I admire his positions, I think his adminisration might be a bumbling one.

On the other hand, he's managing his political campaign with admirable saavy.

[wendybeth]

So the Repubs can't blame Clinton for his mistakes, but dems can blame Bush for his mistakes? You said the Repubs messed things up and whomever is elected will look bad. Won't you be crying "it's Bush's fault" the same as I did about the things that I thought were Clinton's fault?

Of course you will.
No, silly. I'll be blaming Cheney. You really don't think Dubya has actually been calling the shots, do you? (No pun intended).

Back on topic: At the debate yesterday, Clinton mocked Obama over his supposed plagiarism of a friend's speech, but it backfired- the audience booed her for it. She needs to watch it- people don't want Rovian politics, and Obama seems to know it. I realize his response (“What we shouldn’t be spending time doing is tearing each other down. We should be spending time lifting the country up.”) was probably not what he was really thinking, but he was able to deflect her attempted smear and it wound up only making her look bad.

[scaeagles]

The idea that people count time spent as First Lady as experience baffles me. It also pisses me off.

I heard some pundit say "The pastry chef's been working in the White House for decades, but I'm not voting for him for President."

Thought it was funny.

[wendybeth]

I dunno, Scaeagles....I really like pastry.

[innerSpaceman]

I think the pastry chef might work out better than anyone else vying for the job.

[blueerica]

Again, not that I'm caring (yet I still read this thread... why, I am still not sure), and I'm hardly the Clinton fan, she really did revolutionize the role of First Lady in the White House, and was more involved with the day-to-day politics than most of the public ever realized. In addition, and not that it's all that much more time, she's been serving as senator for 7 years now... 4 more than Obama's 3 years. Beyond being Clinton's wife, she's been heavily involved with politics on the national level for over three decades, two decades before Obama made his political debut in Illinois.

So technically, yes, she has more experience.

Not that it makes anyone any better, and like I said, I'm not the lady's biggest fan (though nor am I her biggest detractor)... but I wouldn't discount that she actually has "more" experience.


I think it's all about drive and follow-through, nothing that any of us can really debate before-hand, if you think about it (unless any of you know the future), and my sentiment is that it's all a bunch of hot air at this point.

[Alex]

Technically I think you can only credit them with 6 and 2 years in the Senate. Neither one has really been serving as senators for the last year other than in the most shallow sense.

[SacTown Chronic]

All I can conjure up when I try to think of Hillary's experience is her rousing success with health care reform last time she was in the White House and her rousing success in supporting the invasion and occupation of The Iraq. I'm sure I'm missing other Hillary policy success stories, but I'll be damned if i can think of any off the top of my head.

[JWBear]

I heard some pundit say "The pastry chef's been working in the White House for decades, but I'm not voting for him for President."

Thought it was funny.

I love it! So true.

IMO Obama shows many signs of being a true leader, and the ability to be a true leader is not dependent on experience (although it helps). I don't get that vibe from Clinton.

I'll be honest. I've never liked Hillary Clinton, and, IMO, she would not make a good president. I just don't think she has the good of the country in heart, only the good of Hillary. Plus, I think she would only continue the political divisiveness and party bickering that we have suffered with for far too long.

Does Obama offer hope without substance? Perhaps, but many Americans are hungering for it, and they're not getting it from any of the other candidates.

[Morrigoon]

Frankly, her political involvement while her husband was in office pissed me off. SHE wasn't the one the public elected. In fact, during his candidacy, they tried to downplay er, uh, "soften" her role/image to make her seem less hardline politician and more wifey, then her husband swears in and all of a sudden, she's Hillary RODHAM Clinton and she's championing her own causes. And I'm not talking about things like Ladybird Johnson's flowers on the sides of the highways, but actual major legislative changes to health care. My position on this is the public didn't elect her, she had no right to suddenly act as if we did. You aren't elected just because your spouse is, ESPECIALLY if you purposely downplayed your role during the campaign. That smacks of dishonesty, and there's enough of that sh!t in the White House right now. (Sorry NA, honest feelings here)

As far as Obama... what is he offering us, really? Leadership. As Cheney proves daily, one of the most important aspects of presidency is the president's ability to form and effectively lead a TEAM. Bush has failed miserably at this, and we're pretty sure it's really Vice President Palpatine that's running the show. If Obama can move and inspire the large numbers of people he has in this campaign - even taking conservatives like myself and CP and getting us on his side without actually veering from his liberal agenda, there is somethig to be said for his leadership skills there. That's what we need most right now... Leadership.

[SacTown Chronic]

And now I have Stand by Your Man playing on a loop in my head.

[Strangler Lewis]

And now I have Stand by Your Man playing on a loop in my head.

Tammy Wynette or the Lyle Lovett version from the end of "The Crying Game." You remember "The Crying Game." It's where . . .

[blueerica]

I hate to be arguing semantics here, but the, or at least my, issue was experience, not whether anyone agreed or disagreed with what she did with her 'experience'.

And I completely agree with Alex, that it's more like 6 and 2 years under their terms as senators.

[innerSpaceman]

And sorry, but Hillary gets tons of credit in my book for choosing to dedicate herself to revolutionalizing the life and death, sickness and healthcare world of Americans, rather than planting flowers by the roadsides. I don't care if she was elected or not.



Was Eleanor Roosevelt elected?

[Strangler Lewis]

Or Edith Wilson? Or Judith Exner?

[sleepyjeff]

And sorry, but Hillary gets tons of credit in my book for choosing to dedicate herself to revolutionalizing the life and death, sickness and healthcare world of Americans, rather than planting flowers by the roadsides. I don't care if she was elected or not.



Was Eleanor Roosevelt elected?

Eleanor spent much of her childhood laughing and playing in the WhiteHouse when her Uncle was its' occupant.....I wonder if that counted as experience;)

[Morrigoon]

BE: My issue is respect for the voters. And honesty.

[JWBear]

As far as Obama... what is he offering us, really? Leadership. As Cheney proves daily, one of the most important aspects of presidency is the president's ability to form and effectively lead a TEAM. Bush has failed miserably at this, and we're pretty sure it's really Vice President Palpatine that's running the show. If Obama can move and inspire the large numbers of people he has in this campaign - even taking conservatives like myself and CP and getting us on his side without actually veering from his liberal agenda, there is somethig to be said for his leadership skills there. That's what we need most right now... Leadership.

Hear, hear!!

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Morrigoon nailed it.


Was Eleanor Roosevelt elected?Ok, seriously, you think that Hillary Clinton is comparable to Eleanor Roosevelt? Really, seriously? Hell, I'm not even a huge Eleanor fan, and I still think you're overstepping things by quite a bit.

Seriously, if people want the President to be "The Married President Team", they better amend the f'n constitution.

[blueerica]

BE: My issue is respect for the voters. And honesty.

My point is that respect and honesty, though they could be gained through it, generally have little to nothing to do with experience, and yet the argument here seemed to be that she didn't have experience, on top of being dishonest, etc etc etc. To me, they are separate issues.

[Alex]

I think she has experience of close up observation of the system. I definitely credit her with that.

I do not think she actually has much experience being actually responsible for things and even less being legally accountable for things.

[Ghoulish Delight]

My point is that respect and honesty, though they could be gained through it, generally have little to nothing to do with experience, and yet the argument here seemed to be that she didn't have experience, on top of being dishonest, etc etc etc. To me, they are separate issues.
I don't know that anyone was arguing that she didn't have experience. The question was, does 8 years a first lady count as White House experience?

Obama's only been a senator for 3 (or 2, whatever) years, but he's been a legislator for 11. That's no small amount of experience. And, as 'goon pointed out, it's a combination the the person leading and the people that person leads. He's already put together a team with boatloads of foreign policy experience (an area he's most often attacked for re: experience). Bush's failing in foregin policy was not lack of experience, it was his inability to effectively assemble and lead a team. Obama, I believe, is someone who has that ability.

[scaeagles]

What form of executive experience does he have that would lead you to believe that? I think it's an issue of the personna he shows in public in his speeches rather than anything he has done.

[blueerica]

The idea that people count time spent as First Lady as experience baffles me.

I think Hillary's experience as an extraordinary first lady with a shadow administration, plus the lessons learned from experiencing first-hand her husband's failures ... would lead to a crackerjack operation from the get-go that would hit the ground running.

Just the latest in what I'd been reading into this thread, both sides of the issue, and I just felt the need to say something about it.

Though she wasn't elected, she's been very active for three decades (prior to becoming first lady) in national and state politics, most notably in the arena of public health, though she was also practicing law at the time - so it wasn't a full-time position.

Go look it up.


I don't agree with the lady and would vote for Obama in a heartbeat over Clinton. In fact, I already liked him. But, I do consider the time she spent making decisions and pushing for things I didn't like, whether as an appointee to various committees or the experience she gained as First Lady, to constitute as experience.


This election is so not even awesome. For all the mudslinging I have seen in campaigns past, I never felt like the petty BS that comes along with campaigning has sucked the life out of me like this campaign. Seriously, the news switches to politics and I contemplate suicide. OK, I'm being overly dramatic, but I die a little inside. I'll probably vote for Obama but this campaign is just too much bleh for me.

[Morrigoon]

Well, the point I guess I'm trying to get at is, she may have gained some experience, but I'm so angry over how she came by much of that experience that I am ready to discount it.

I like the point made earlier about "accountable" experience. The experience she gained by doing things we did not elect her to do was not exactly a period of accountability, given that the people didn't have much say in her getting involved and the only way to get her out would be to also bump out the guy the people DID elect. So she could pretty much do whatever she thought she could get away with. Is complete disregard for the wishes of the voters good experience? Is that the experience we want to place her in office with?

And yes, scaeagles, it's true that all we have to go on are pretty speeches. But speeches ARE a major part of leadership, so there is something revealing going on there.

Bush, by comparison, cannot speak, cannot lead, cannot even hold an executive team together. Areas he failed at the most, are the areas I'm focused on electing a candidate by. If Hillary, with all her "experience", all her connections, etc., cannot put and hold together a successful election team, what basis do I have for believing she can assemble a successful executive team? Oh yeah, her time in Bill's White House... which means probably a rehash of Bill's executive team. That sounds like "same old same old" to me.

And for the record, Bill does have something to do with the situation we're in currently - his administration allowed the economy to grow unchecked into a period of what Buffett wisely calls "irrational exuberance". Thus leading to the bursting of the dot-com bubble. Bush, as a reaction to the bubble and attempt to recover the economy, spurred on the real estate market, (and once again leading Buffett to cry "irrational exuberance") leading to the current troubles . So do we want the same people that started it all back in charge? Or do we want to try our luck with someone new?

[Kevy Baby]

I think the pastry chef might work out better than anyone else vying for the job.
Roland Mesnier for President (http://www.whitehouse.gov/chef/)

[JWBear]

Roland Mesnier for President (http://www.whitehouse.gov/chef/)


Unfortunately, he retired. There's a new pastry chef now.

[Kevy Baby]

Unfortunately, he retired. There's a new pastry chef now.So then he is more than ready to run! He got the experience, now he freed up his schedule to run as an Independent this November.



ETA: JEEBUS; the man retired in 2004 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3803724). The White House REALLY needs to update their web site!

[JWBear]

True.

[Morrigoon]

So that means there's a new guy with 4 years' experience in the White House. That's like... a whole presidential term!

[Alex]

Though Mesnier is also not a native born citizen so he is otherwise disqualified regardless of any valuable experience he may have.

[innerSpaceman]

Ok, seriously, you think that Hillary Clinton is comparable to Eleanor Roosevelt? Really, seriously?
Get a grip, please, and some reading comprehension Ms. Librarian. ;) I was merely pointing out that a first lady needn't be elected to do good and ultimately admired works. I was not comparing the merits of those works. Simply rebutting Morrigoon's argument that first ladies had best just bake pastries for drive-thru windows.


Seriously, if people want the President to be "The Married President Team", they better amend the f'n constitution.
And now that you mention it, perhaps it should be pointed out that the administration is one, big collective team ... with a single ultimate decision-maker. No one else on the team is elected. So what's the big difference if the first lady (or first laddy) plays on the team???



And if - as looks a longshot now - Hillary wins, we'll not only have the first first laddy ... but the most experienced first spouse EVER to assist the business of the White House.

:)

[Alex]

And now that you mention it, perhaps it should be pointed out that the administration is one, big collective team ... with a single ultimate decision-maker. No one else on the team is elected. So what's the big difference if the first lady (or first laddy) plays on the team???

I don't have any expectation that a president's spouse will avoid political participation and don't hold it against her or any other if they did. However, one very key difference is that pretty much all of the major members of that big collective team are submitted to congressional oversight and approval and are subject to lots of laws and regulations that the presidential spouse isn't (or would be in a very grey area if congress tried to enforce them). Congress can't impeach the first spouse.

[innerSpaceman]

I wasn't aware they could impeach the Chief of Staff either. But that person can be (and often is) fired. No so the first spouse.


Though Bill might well break that record, too!:D

[Ghoulish Delight]

Yes, appointed cabinet members can be impeached.

ETA: More specifically, precedent has defined impeachable "civil officers" as "anyone appointed by the President", which would be the Cabinet and federal judges

[blueerica]

And First Wives could be divorced... ;)

I wonder if a sitting President could be impeached over the actions of his/her wife/husband... Perhaps if the President were to lie and cover up actions or something.

[Alex]

And if you think the battle over the degree to which executive privilege covers conversations between the president and his staff has been divisive, wait until congress thinks it has valid reasons to know about conversations between a president and his/her spouse.

[innerSpaceman]

Oh c'mon people ... don't you wanna get Bill Clinton back in the White House just to make the Republicans and Conservatives and Fundamentalists' collective blood boil? Even just a teeny bit??

[Prudence]

Would Hillary even have been a viable candidate if she hadn't been first lady? I don't think we're at a point in this country where a woman can "rise through the ranks" in the same way the typical male candidate does. True, there are relatively few women in the senator/governor pool in which we like to fish, but they've never been serious contenders. Actually, I didn't expect Hillary to last as long as she has because we still, as a nation, put so much stock in notions of how women should behave. (Can you imagine the fall-out if a female candidate faced infidelity allegations?)

And frankly, her first lady operations never bothered me. Hell, Bill was elected to a second term, so apparently she couldn't have been that much of a bother. If I cared passionately about a cause and suddenly was in a position - elected or not - to possibly have what I saw as a positive impact, I'd take that ball and run. Could she have handled things a bit more artfully at first? Perhaps. Maybe that approach worked in Arkansas and she was as shocked as anyone that the rest of the country wasn't on board.

Also, I've said it before - I get really sick of political pundits jumping to knock down someone who suggests a reform because that reform isn't perfect, and then not even having the balls to suggest something else. It's really easy to criticize but there are real problems that merit real discussion. If there was a "perfect" answer I'm sure it would have appeared already. We're imperfect people and we're going to have to settle for imperfect solutions. And if the first lady or first gentleman or first daughter's ex-boyfriend's next door neighbor's cousin wants to spark a national discourse, I'm in favor.

However, I'm with blueerica - I'm just feeling blah about this election. My preferred candidate isn't yet old enough to run, and my second favorite candidate already bowed out. I'm pretty sure that no matter how it shakes out I'll somehow end up in the group that needs to be taxed more and provided fewer benefits (too poor for R tax cuts, too rich for D tax cuts). Maybe I just sigh and wait for 2012.

[Alex]

No. Like I've said before, even though I don't have anything against Clinton as a candidate other than policy differences (I don't think she's a bitch or mean or self advancing in any ways that are unusual for the willing politician), but I do consider her disqualified simply because I think it is a horrible idea to return a former president to the White House in any capacity, but particularly an active unofficial one.

So Laura Bush, Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton, and Rosalynn Carter are disqualified. The last couple of years have returned Nancy Reagan and Betty Ford to contention should they wish to pursue it.

[Morrigoon]

And now that you mention it, perhaps it should be pointed out that the administration is one, big collective team ... with a single ultimate decision-maker. No one else on the team is elected. So what's the big difference if the first lady (or first laddy) plays on the team???

I'm going to ignore your oversimplification of my point, because I have to give you mad props for making an excellent point of your own. It is true that the spouse could be considered a part of the team.

So I'm wondering... should congress insist on the ability to confirm the first spouse?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Hmm, wasn't Hillary's campaign JUST complaining about Obama "plagiarizing" speech lines from a friend?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ7Cs3QvT3U

ETA: Oh look, more... http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/21/234359/830/75/461653

Personally, it doesn't bother me. I only point it out due to the fact that people were trying to drag Barack across the coals for doing the exact same thing.

[sleepyjeff]

Hmm, wasn't Hillary's campaign JUST complaining about Obama "plagiarizing" speech lines from a friend?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJ7Cs3QvT3U

ETA: Oh look, more... http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/21/234359/830/75/461653

Personally, it doesn't bother me. I only point it out due to the fact that people were trying to drag Barack across the coals for doing the exact same thing.

We over here on the right side got to suffer the Clinton's bold hypocrisy for 8 years....glad to see it being aimed in a different direction for a change:D

[JWBear]

Oh c'mon people ... don't you wanna get Bill Clinton back in the White House just to make the Republicans and Conservatives and Fundamentalists' collective blood boil? Even just a teeny bit??

No. I'm tired of the divisiveness.

[Deebs]

No. I'm tired of the divisiveness.

Me too, yo.

[Kevy Baby]

Though Mesnier is also not a native born citizen so he is otherwise disqualified regardless of any valuable experience he may have.Hence the need for the 61st Amendment

I wasn't aware they could impeach the Chief of Staff either. But that person can be (and often is) fired. No so the first spouse.But Bill was already impeached. So how does that affect the decision.

[Not Afraid]

I sure as hell Michelle Obama makes sure she only deals with issues of lesser importance than Hillary did. Maybe knitting will become an even bigger craze with Michelle, or perhaps she can popularize presidential sock darning. God help the country is she actually has a brain and uses her VERY influential position as the First Lady to push forth the MEANINGFUL issues she feels are important. That obviously is not something a first lady should EVER do. Tisk tisk.

[scaeagles]

No. I'm tired of the divisiveness.

To far too many, ending divisiveness means "do it my way".

[SacTown Chronic]

Just Say No

[innerSpaceman]

I prefer My Way or the Highway, to be precise

[wendybeth]

To far too many, ending divisiveness means "do it my way".

You wouldn't be referring to your better half there, would you?;):p

(Because she's right.)

[scaeagles]

I rule my house with an iron claw, WB.:argghh:

[Alex]

Is that because your wife tore off the hand the first time you tried to show her how it would be?

[scaeagles]

No, but that's why I have a peg leg - first time I said "Woman, this is my foot, and it is down".....well, you can imagine the rest. Thus the pirate smilie.

[wendybeth]

Maybe we do need a woman president.:evil:

[blueerica]

Well, I know that McCain's song is Mellencamp's "Pink Houses." What are the songs from the others?

Edited to add: I just read that McCain has Mellencamp's "Our Country" - which would be really annoying... When Edwards used it, it sucked, too. I had read earlier that it was "Pink Houses" which I love... bleh.

I should go look it up. Maybe I can vote best on best taste in campaign songs...

Edit to add II: OK, so Clinton is Celine Dion's "Taking Chances"... bleh.

[scaeagles]

Maybe we do need a woman president.:evil:

Well, from a war-mongering Republican stand point, that might be good - maybe Hillary would chop off Ahmahdinejad's (or however the hell you spell it) head or something.

[blueerica]

Or something.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Oh c'mon people ... don't you wanna get Bill Clinton back in the White House just to make the Republicans and Conservatives and Fundamentalists' collective blood boil? Even just a teeny bit??No. Using this tipping point in history as a "gotcha back!" is childish, short-sighted, and destructive. As the others said, it just adds to divisiveness. We want to make America a better place, not "stick it to those jerks". Baggage, baggage, baggage.

Can we live in a world where people try to stop the cycles of divisiveness between the parties, so we can instead reach for solutions to real problems?

Yes we can. ;)



On another note - one of my younger brothers, a registered Republican and definite conservative, has told me that if Obama got the nomination, he'd get his vote in November, despite the fact that he probably does not agree with him on a single issue. He told me that he believes in Obama's leadership, and that that's what we need now. I was shocked to hear that he'd actually vote Democrat.

[scaeagles]

I can name many a great leader throughout history that I wouldn't want as President.

Can someone answer me this - and I mean it sincerely. How are we to end diviseness when people and politicians are passionate yet on directly opposing sides of important and controversial issues? Somethings are not open to compromise. Talking? Not often. This is why I think Obama is a bit naive in his foreign policy aims. There are leaders and nations that don't want to talk, they want the destruction of America or Israel or freedom in general. Abortion is not an issue of compromise for those that believe a fetus is living and those that believe it is a complete issue of the woman's body. Even Iraq is not open to compromise. There are serious issues that people of passion and conscience on both sides cannot compromise on.

[BarTopDancer]

Obama has a better chance of bringing opposing sides to middle ground then anyone else running. It does not appear that Obama will not budge for the sake of not budging. If the other side is willing to give, it seems he will be willing to give to. I don't hold that same view of Clinton or McCain.

My not wanting Clinton to win has nothing to do with returning Bill to the White House. I don't like how she comes across. I don't think she will be willing to compromise. I think she will be a "my way or the highway" President.

I think America is ready for a female President. I don't think that the best candidate for this election is H. Clinton. Nothing to do with her gender.

[scaeagles]

Like I said, though, on many issues there is no middle ground. He seems willing to give? On what? Abortion? Tax policy? Iraq? Now granted, I don't know a while lot about his pre US Senate career, but what do you base that on besides speeches of "hope" and "change", especially when looking at his agenda and knowing that there will be HUGE opposition to a large porion of it from the right?

[€uroMeinke]

There are leaders and nations that don't want to talk, they want the destruction of America or Israel or freedom in general. Abortion is not an issue of compromise for those that believe a fetus is living and those that believe it is a complete issue of the woman's body. Even Iraq is not open to compromise. There are serious issues that people of passion and conscience on both sides cannot compromise on.

I think sometimes people get focused on solutions instead of the underlying problem. Sure there are people focused on the destruction of America - is the only solution their destruction? If the real goal is not wanting people to want to destroy us maybe there are other solutions?

Abortion - If the real goal is preventing abortion, maybe we could also focus on preventing the situations where people come to contemplate abortion?

I think there is always room for conversation and a bit of "root-cause analysis" to find solutions that may not be so black and white - but that's hard work and takes longer than a 15-second sound bite to explain.

The real fact is politicians need the divisiveness to define themselves. If they want to be elected they must paint their opponent as a demon since most of us vote with our gut and not with our head, preferring to rationalize our decisions after we have made them.

[mousepod]

Well, I know that McCain's song is Mellencamp's "Pink Houses." What are the songs from the others?

Edited to add: I just read that McCain has Mellencamp's "Our Country" - which would be really annoying... When Edwards used it, it sucked, too. I had read earlier that it was "Pink Houses" which I love... bleh.

I should go look it up. Maybe I can vote best on best taste in campaign songs...

Edit to add II: OK, so Clinton is Celine Dion's "Taking Chances"... bleh.

Here's some info on the candidates' choice of music. (http://timesonline.typepad.com/uselections/2008/02/he-battled-the.html)

[Not Afraid]

As I've said before, I think Obama talks a great talk. I'm sure he means well, but I doubt he has the capacity or experience to "make it work" (to borrow another catchy and popular phrase). It's not that I don't like what he believes in - Clinton and Obama are pretty much carbon copies of each other with slight differences in ephemera. Either one would probably have the same results as President. I'm just not falling for his rhetoric and I think it his pie-in-the-sky proposals are terribly unrealistic. But, it's what people want to hear at the moment, and I don't blame them. Eight years of Bush has taken his toll. I will vote for whomever the Dem candidate ends up being because, what other choice do I have? I'm just not convinced that Obama can deliver and we REALLY need deliverance at the moment.

[Prudence]

A lot of "polarization" comes from refusing to acknowledge shared values and focusing exclusively on the differences. Abortion's already been mentioned at least twice, so let's take that as an example. Perhaps the democratic party has as one objective ensuring that abortion remains a legal medical procedure. Perhaps the opposite side of the aisle has on objective ensuring that abortion is made illegal. Described in that fashion, they are polar opposites. And if that's where we remain, what is the point of any of this?

An effective leader is able to highlight the shared values from seemingly disparate viewpoints and direct the energies from all sides toward accomplishing those mutual goals. In the case of abortion, both sides presumably wish to reduce the number of abortions. There might not be agreement on how to accomplish that, but a shared goal is a start.

It's a concept that's broadly applicable. What is the shared goal in Iraq? Or in foreign policy in general? At the end of the day, most of us want jobs that pay enough for us to meet our bills and have a little discretionary left over. We want appropriate food, shelter, clothing, and access to services. We want to feel that we have some equality of opportunity - that if we have the necessary skill and put forth the necessary effort our reward will be similar to that of others with similar skills and effort. We want to feel safe in our homes and not worry that our kids might be killed or molested at school.

That's a lot of commonality that's all too readily ignored in our national obsession with aligning ourselves with "causes".

[sleepyjeff]

I am actually pro-decisiveness....the more they argue over how to screw us the less they will actually screw us;)

[Motorboat Cruiser]

I am actually pro-decisiveness....the more they argue over how to screw us the less they will actually screw us;)

I think you mean "divisiveness."

[blueerica]

Yeah, last thing we want are decisions being made! Especially in the government! ;)

[Kevy Baby]

Well, I know that McCain's song is Mellencamp's "Pink Houses." What are the songs from the others?

Edited to add: I just read that McCain has Mellencamp's "Our Country" - which would be really annoying... When Edwards used it, it sucked, too. I had read earlier that it was "Pink Houses" which I love... bleh. As noted in Mousepod's link, McCain was asked by Mellencamp to not use either song. He was also asked by ABBA to not use "Take a Chance."

I should go look it up. Maybe I can vote best on best taste in campaign songs...

Edit to add II: OK, so Clinton is Celine Dion's "Taking Chances"... bleh.I always thought that Bill Clinton's theme song should have been Pink Floyd's "Have a Cigar." Maybe Hillary could adopt it.

[wendybeth]

I think that's cool about your brother, CP- I have voted for two Republicans in local elections this past year, because I felt they were the best candidates for the job. I have no patience with people who vote along party lines simply because the candidate is put out there by the party. It should be the best person for the job, period. Everyone on here seems very informed and are making their decisions based on their candidate's platform and ideology- something I wish a lot of other people I know irl would do.

[sleepyjeff]

I think you mean "divisiveness."

Maybe....;)

[scaeagles]

I actually have voted for a democrat a couple of times. Don't tell anyone, though.

However, WB, what you've said really makes me know that I have to vote for McCain no matter how much I dislike him. No protest vote for me.

[wendybeth]

I don't think anyone on here would expect you to do otherwise, Scaeagles.

[sleepyjeff]

I am just gong to vote for the candidate who promises to eliminate Daylight savings time....that's my issue:);)

[wendybeth]

I think that's a bit too controversial for this board, Jeff.

[Strangler Lewis]

Somebody Buy That Man A Corvair (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022400465.html)

[innerSpaceman]

Oh, i rather like Nader in the race. He's not in it to win, simply to inject some liberal and progressive ideas into the mix on whatever level his publicity will achieve.

At this point, when the more "viable" progressive candidates have all left the real race, i think it's great that Nader is stepping in with a faux campaign to keep some of those issues alive.

[blueerica]

As noted in Mousepod's link, McCain was asked by Mellencamp to not use either song. He was also asked by ABBA to not use "Take a Chance."



I had heard about that before, but it seems as though he continues to pull out new Mellencamp songs, or so it seems. Mellencamp was a big Edwards supporter.

[scaeagles]

OK....in the same way that I defended McCain, whom I dislike, with the NYT story, I've got to defend Obama, whom I dislike, in this photo thing -

Obama smear photo (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8667.html)

Big freakin' deal. Clinton has always annoyed me, and she is trying anything and everything now.

[Strangler Lewis]

Disappointing. I thought you were going to post pictures of him having sex with the guy from the tabloid that I saw this morning.

Maybe "disappointing" isn't quite the word.

[wendybeth]

Her camp is adding insult to injury by acting disingenuous about the release and his response to their possible motivations. This is sleazy and and exactly the sort of **** that turns me completely off- I hope Obama refrains from responding in kind, or I may not be voting for anyone this election.

[Morrigoon]

So basically Clinton is playing on the racism of the voters? Bad show...

[scaeagles]

This doesn't shock me at all. I have always considered the Clintons - both of them - to be mad in their desire for power and they will cease at nothing (and I mean absolutely nothing) to gain it.

[sleepyjeff]

... I have always considered the Clintons - both of them - to be mad in their desire for power and they will cease at nothing (and I mean absolutely nothing) to gain it.

Not likely then that Obama would offer the former 1st lady the VP spot I suppose;)

[innerSpaceman]

This doesn't shock me at all. I have always considered the Clintons - both of them - to be mad in their desire for power and they will cease at nothing (and I mean absolutely nothing) to gain it.

OMG, that would make them like, like ... oh like 98.6% of all politicians everywhere.



That said, it's sad to see that the panic setting in is inspiring such shameful and retarded tactics.

[scaeagles]

Well, of course politicians want power, but each has their limits as to what lengths they will go to to gain it. I happen to think there are none with limits that go beyond the Clintons.

[Moonliner]

Mufasa and Scar both wanted power.

[Alex]

As does my laptop.

[Gn2Dlnd]

As does my lap.

[scaeagles]

Found this (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7629b522-e641-11dc-8398-0000779fd2ac.html) to be interesting.

It's about Obama's "shift" to the left. The problem is that it isn't a shift to the left in policies, it is simply that he is detailing what he believes. I don't think his supposed shift to the left is the concern, I think the concern is that his policies are only coming to light in a limited fashion because he's trying to portray himself as a centrist.

[Ghoulish Delight]

People seem to be mistaking, "Willing to talk to and about people who disagree with you without being condescending" with "centrist". I don't agree that he ever was passing himself off as centrist, he's always been almost identical to Hilary on "the issues".

[scaeagles]

Except that the media, I believe intentionally, hasn't covered him as the liberal that he is, and most people who do not pay attention only know of his talking about "change" and "hope". When he comes out in speeches talking about his liberal policies, it becomes more difficult to hide.

Yes, I'm being somewhat conspiratorial, but where has the media coverage been on how far left he is?

[Strangler Lewis]

Except that the media, I believe intentionally, hasn't covered him as the liberal that he is, and most people who do not pay attention only know of his talking about "change" and "hope". When he comes out in speeches talking about his liberal policies, it becomes more difficult to hide.

Yes, I'm being somewhat conspiratorial, but where has the media coverage been on how far left he is?

The media, at least the part that some would call "liberal" or "left," probably wouldn't focus on Obama's being "liberal" or "on the left" except when discussing how he might be perceived by those who use those terms pejoratively.

[scaeagles]

If there is concern about him "appearing" to move to the left, when he isn't moving and is simply talking about his opinions, then there is obviously concern about covering his policies because his policies show him for what he is without all the hope and change rhetoric throw in.

And I don't mean "show him for what he is" in a bad way. I don't think he's a bad man. I just think his policies are far left and there is a concerted effort to keep that hidden.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Except that the media, I believe intentionally, hasn't covered him as the liberal that he is, and most people who do not pay attention only know of his talking about "change" and "hope". When he comes out in speeches talking about his liberal policies, it becomes more difficult to hide.

Yes, I'm being somewhat conspiratorial, but where has the media coverage been on how far left he is?We're still in the Democratic primary. He's running against Hillary. They are almost identical. It's a non issue until he's running against someone else. How would, "Democratic candidate holds liberal beliefs" be a headline?

[scaeagles]

I guess you have a point there. However, why then is there concern about him appearing to move to the left when he is talking about policy?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Because that article decided to spin things like that?

[scaeagles]

Spin? Perhaps. One mans spin is another mans news reporting, I guess.

[Alex]

Well, the article doesn't present any evidence of "shift." It doesn't present a single position that shows a more centrist position by Obama in the past let alone that he has moved to the left on it. It pretends confusion as to why Obama would just now be talking about such "liberal" (I fail to see how opposition to the border loosening elements of NAFTA is a liberal position but let's say it is) now when the answer is obvious (uh... two states hugely impacted by NAFTA and also in possession of a huge number of delegates are the current focus of the campaign. It is no surprise that NAFTA wasn't such an issue in Hawaii and Georgia).

He is also saying almost the exact same things about NAFTA as Clinton, so has she also taken a sudden startlingly leftward jaunt?

So, I don't actually see any reporting. Just quotes from strategists who disagree with strategy while presenting no evidence of a strategist change by Obama or a change in the tone of coverage by the press.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Until I see some evidence that he's actually moved to the left, rather than the fact that people were just not paying attention and now suddenly are and that he appears to have moved to the left, it's spin.

The reality is, he knew from the beginning that he wasn't going to beat Hillary based on issues. There's nothing to distinguish him from her on that. So he didn't focus on it and instead focused on where he felt he did have her beat, character. He never claimed be to centrist, he never claimed any views that were further right than he actually is. So any "move" is purely a perception based on assumptions, not on reality.

[Gemini Cricket]

Whether Obama gets in or not, I can't wait use the Republican play book and blame Bush (and his wife) for everything that's wrong with this country for the next eight years.
:D

[JWBear]

It'll be refreshing to have a President whith character...

[Gemini Cricket]

And it'll be nice to listen to a presidential speech without feeling like you should shove ice picks in your ears, too.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Whether Obama gets in or not, I can't wait use the Republican play book and blame Bush (and his wife) for everything that's wrong with this country for the next eight years.
:D:( Revenge repairs nothing. Looking backward to learn from the past is instructive, but looking backward to make a scene about blame is destructive. It would be nice if we could break the cycle.

[scaeagles]

Whether Obama gets in or not, I can't wait use the Republican play book and blame Bush (and his wife) for everything that's wrong with this country for the next eight years.
:D


And I can't wait to use the phrase "on his watch" over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

:p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p

[Gemini Cricket]

:( Revenge repairs nothing. Looking backward to learn from the past is instructive, but looking backward to make a scene about blame is destructive. It would be nice if we could break the cycle.
Turnabout is fair play. I think the Republicans need to realize that strategies they have used in the past also work in reverse. These politicians need to be called on their mistakes, no one seems to be doing that.

Although thinking like CP's is honorable and just, it ain't how politicians think. And used as a strategy by the Dems will just get them painted as weak by the media and the Repubs. It's the way it is.

Democrats need to come up with more cohesively strategies. It's something the Republicans do well. Yes, lots of times I don't agree with them, but I do applaud their unity.

For example: I guarantee you, if there is an attack on our country after a Dem gets in as president, that the blame will fall directly in his or her lap. There will be no applause for that president on a pile of rubble. The president will be hung out to dry... by the Republicans.

[Gemini Cricket]

And I can't wait to use the phrase "on his watch" over and over and over and over...
Or her watch...
:D

[SacTown Chronic]

With it down to McCain v. Clinton or Obama, I fear we may have to put Leo on suicide watch this fall.

[Gemini Cricket]

And speaking of McCain, I wonder if the 2000 whisper campaign Bush/Rove made about him being gay and fathering a black child out of wedlock will surface again. Or are these things suddenly untrue as he is the nominee for the Republicans? And will his status as a war vet propel him to victory despite that it was used against Kerry. It's that double-standard thing I loooove.

[sleepyjeff]

And I can't wait to use the phrase "on his watch" over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

:p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p

Me neither.......if comparisons to Clinton, no matter how valid they were, are off limits than comparisons to Bush over the course of the next 8 years must also be off limits....at least to the non-hypocritical;)