U.S. 2008 Elections: McCain vs Obama

Well it's official, (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/us/politics/03cnd-elect.html) Obama is the Democratic candidate. Which means one headache is down for the mods and another one begins. Err. . . I mean, it's the happy time where we combine the Democrat and Republican threads into a single thread.

First I bring you a word from our sponsors:

1. If something is a fact state your source.
2. If something is not a fact explain that it is your opinion. I do not care if it is a fact in your opinion. If it's not a fact backed up by a reliable source then it is your opinion and I expect you to say so.
3. If something is blatantly not a fact like a blanket statement that all Republicans are racist wife beating totalitarians or that all Democrats still sleep with a teddy bear then please do not say it. You can say that in your opinion many Democrats still sleep with a teddy bear but if you present this as a fact then I want to see a source confirming it to be true.

That's it. Something is a fact or it's your opinion. It should be clear which is which at all times.

If you do not follow these simple guidelines and as always How to have a pleasant conversation on any topic. (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=104233) You will be removed from the DoIMC for at least one week or up to 30 days. This applies to everyone Democrats and Republicans alike. Any questions on modding go to myself, Morgoth (http://www.cosforums.com/member.php?u=3) or lanifiel (http://www.cosforums.com/member.php?u=851). Any offensive posts should be reported. If you respond rudely to a rude post you will be warned and removed from the DoIMC. Ah yes, happy days ahead.

So yes on to the topic itself.

1. Have you decided who you will (would) vote for?
2. Which issues are the most important to you? Health care? Iraq? The economy? Which candidate do you think is stronger on the issues that matter to you?
3. Who do you think would be the best VP pick for each candidate?
4. How do you feel about the campaigns Obama and McCain have run so far? What do you think they will need to do to secure the Presidency?

Beautiful Obama speech - I smell victory !

I'm enrolled to help my local congressional race. It's very red here in Orange County, CA, but we'll push.

3,000 th post - on new thread ! How wonderful ! (will I top 4K by November?)

Err. . . I mean, it's the happy time where we combine the Democrat and Republican threads into a single thread.

That's Democratic

1. Have you decided who you will (would) vote for?

Not really. Leaning towards Barack. Know it won't be McCain. Since the primary and all these things swirling around Obama have made him into IMO a weaksauce candidate, it's still likely I'll vote for him. Or I might just go Libertarian or something. If I do vote for Obama, there won't be any joy in it.

2. Which issues are the most important to you? Health care? Iraq? The economy? Which candidate do you think is stronger on the issues that matter to you?

All three of those are tops on my list. And McCain offers nothing that is in line with my views. Obama does at least.

3. Who do you think would be the best VP pick for each candidate?

I don't know. I just know that Obama should be extremely wary about making Clinton VP.

4. How do you feel about the campaigns Obama and McCain have run so far? What do you think they will need to do to secure the Presidency?

McCain, too late, is trying to distance himself from Bush. I don't appreciate that he has pandered to the worst elements of the GOP. The McCain that I thought was compelling a few years ago is sadly gone. In order for him to win, he'll need to both show that he's experienced and Obama's not. But I don't think he can win on Iraq. Obama has to distance himself from erstwhile supporters that are embarrassments. It will be tough to do however. Some white independents are sure to make Obama pay for his supporters' (Wright and Pfleger) shameless race-baiting. In fact, that's almost the case with me. This and his connection with Tony Rezko make me wary.

1. Have you decided who you will (would) vote for?
John McCain

2. Which issues are the most important to you? Health care? Iraq? The economy? Which candidate do you think is stronger on the issues that matter to you?
National security, economy, character. McCain is stonger on all three.

3. Who do you think would be the best VP pick for each candidate?
No opinion yet.

4. How do you feel about the campaigns Obama and McCain have run so far? What do you think they will need to do to secure the Presidency?
I think Obama has promised everything the democrates want to hear. McCain could use some work on delivery but his message is believable.

Yeah, I'm the first post, guess everyone else is watching Obama.

1. Have you decided who you will (would) vote for?
John McCain

2. Which issues are the most important to you? Health care? Iraq? The economy? Which candidate do you think is stronger on the issues that matter to you?
National security, economy, character. McCain is stonger on all three.

3. Who do you think would be the best VP pick for each candidate?
No opinion yet.

4. How do you feel about the campaigns Obama and McCain have run so far? What do you think they will need to do to secure the Presidency?
I think Obama has promised everything the democrates want to hear. McCain could use some work on delivery but his message is believable.

Yeah, I'm the first post, guess everyone else is watching Obama.

Shucky darn - guess my typing is too slow.

I'm too happy tonight to answer questions. I will do so tomorrow.

I'm too happy tonight to answer questions. I will do so tomorrow.

I'm overwhelmingly underwhelmed.

1. Have you decided who you will (would) vote for?
Barack Obama
2. Which issues are the most important to you? Health care? Iraq? The economy? Which candidate do you think is stronger on the issues that matter to you?
Health care, the economy, net neutrality, Obama agrees with my position on all of those
3. Who do you think would be the best VP pick for each candidate?
I don't know. I feel like Bill Richardson would be a good VP, but I'd rather him be the Secretary of State. I don't want Hillary as the VP
4. How do you feel about the campaigns Obama and McCain have run so far? What do you think they will need to do to secure the Presidency?
Obama's campaign has been masterful, he's hit all the right notes at the perfect time. McCain, in my opinion, was simply the least flawed of the Republican candidates.

1. Have you decided who you will (would) vote for?

I'm open to Obama, but I have to see who his running mate is. If he chooses Hillary or someone completely off the wall, I'm going with Bob Barr.

2. Which issues are the most important to you? Health care? Iraq? The economy? Which candidate do you think is stronger on the issues that matter to you?

1) Terrorism/national security/Iraq
2) Censorship/media regulation
3) Ending prosecution of victimless crimes
4) Strengthening the economy, lowering taxes
5) Getting the federal government out of education, and returning choice to parents

3. Who do you think would be the best VP pick for each candidate?

For Obama, Bill Richardson. He's moderate, intelligent, and IMO, should have been the one to get the Democratic nomination in the first place.

For McCain, maybe Joe Lieberman. Even though I don't like him personally, from an objective standpoint, he would be able to pull over some moderate-to-conservative Democrats while espousing some traditionally conservative views that would not cause Republicans to turn away.

Barr picked a good one in Wayne Root, who I was campaigning hard for during the Libertarian primaries.

4. How do you feel about the campaigns Obama and McCain have run so far? What do you think they will need to do to secure the Presidency?

Obama did very well in the face of below the belt hits from his opponents and tough obstacles like the Jeremiah Wright controversy. His message of change has really hit a chord, especially among Gen-Xers and Milenniums. He has to ensure that he is still immune to these controversies once the general election comes around.

McCain has been low-profile and not really out on the trail once he took the nomination, which takes him out of the public eye. On the positive side, he has avoided the negativity and mudslinging that has plagued the Democrats until now.

Barr has to show he has truly reversed himself on his past social stances (Defense of Marriage Act, Clinton impeachment, War on Drugs) that would turn off a large section of Libertarians. At the same time, he must use his experience and name recognition (and tap into Root's natural charisma) to galvanize a strong movement among people who may not like either major candidate.

That's Democratic
Actually I think it's "Democrat" (no "ic") and "Republican". The USA is a democratic country, it has two main parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. The "ic" thing is something that GW Bush kept saying when referring to the Dems and got derided for. Though one does say "The Democratic candidate" as well as "the candidate for the Democrats". Very confusing for a foreigner like me, but I try to follow what's being written and said by people in the know.

Since I don't vote in this country, my vote in here counts only as my opinion of who I think will win. :)

The proper name is the Democratic Party. Not the Democrat Party.

1. Have you decided who you will (would) vote for?

I was an Edwards supporter. I would love to see him as VP although I know many will disagree with me. I liked Clinton as my back up but it was not meant to be. I feel nothing for Obama. Perhaps he can shange the country but his record doesn't bear it out thus far. I'd hate to elect him on his brief history in politics. But I simply can't support McCain. He is soft on the economy--by his own admission--and I can't get on board with Iraq. If it was a lesser of two evil I'd probably go Obama. Which isn't to say that I don't respect both men immensely, I do.

2. Which issues are the most important to you? Health care? Iraq? The economy? Which candidate do you think is stronger on the issues that matter to you?

Education and the economy are my two biggest issues. I hope that both Obam and McCain get very specific in their plans for these areas.

3. Who do you think would be the best VP pick for each candidate?

Edwards for sure for Obama (I know it'll never happen though). I'm not familiar with Republicans but McCain should court a female VP, imho.

4. How do you feel about the campaigns Obama and McCain have run so far?

I feel like McCain is a one trick pony. Iraq. I want him to convey to me his positions on other equal if not more important issues. I don't want to have to go digging through to find out exactly what he stands for. Obama just seems---flowery to me. Quite showy but nearly empty of true passion. I feel like he was lucky in that Clinton took the implosion to new levels and that the primary scedule favored him when it counted. Had some of the later states gone sooner I think we would have seen a different outcome.


What do you think they will need to do to secure the Presidency?

McCain needs to show he's not one dimensional. Obama needs to start getting his message to the working class.

McCain needs to show he's not one dimensional. Obama needs to start getting his message to the working class.

It's late, for a moment I thought you said "McCain needs to show he's not premenstrual".

It's late, for a moment I thought you said "McCain needs to show he's not premenstrual".

:rotfl:

The proper name is the Democratic Party. Not the Democrat Party.
Yes, I did say the "Democratic candidate", and I never said the Democrat Party - and I was sure that people had criticized Bush for saying "Democratic" rather than "Democrat". People do say "I'm a Democrat" or "I'm a Republican" though, don't they?

But this is semantics. We're supposed to be discussing politics. :lol:

Flimsey Cauldron, I was for Edwards too, and at one point I was hoping that he'd make a comeback while the other two were bickering, but that was not to be. He may be a good choice as VP, but I'd rather he got something like Attorney General, and someone like Bill Richardson got the VP post - Richardson would bring in the Hispanic vote and his own international affairs knowledge (I remember him as US Ambassador to the UN, I was working there at the time. He was a better one than Negroponte later). I saw somewhere a list of women who could potentially be asked for that post. However, if the VP slot goes to a woman other than Hillary Clinton, I fear that wouldn't play well.

1. Have you decided who you will (would) vote for?
I'm not America, but if I was... even though they're both substantially to the right of me, I'd vote for Obama (and that goes double or triple if McCain chooses Romney as his running mate). I've read The Audacity of Hope and he comes across as a genuinely sincere, decent person whose political positions are motivated more by what he thinks will work than the simple party line. He had a good sense of humour, is able to laugh at himself, and understands the issues, as well as how politics works and what things can be done to make government work better. He's someone who knows how to deal with issues like race and religion with sensitivity and understanding and I think that would help him bring more unity. And he understands that "cut taxes for the rich and ignore the economy" is not a productive economic policy.

2. Which issues are the most important to you? Health care? Iraq? The economy? Which candidate do you think is stronger on the issues that matter to you?
As I'm not American, foreign policy is #1. The fact that Obama's willing to talk to people he disagrees with, wants to leave Iraq without putting permanent bases in place, and isn't inclined to attack Iran are all positives over McCain. His pragmatism and willingness to listen to other points of view is also a plus - I can at least see the possibility of discussing new tactics with NATO for dealing with poppies in Afghanistan, as the current eradication policy is only making us more enemies.

There's also the fact that he wants to renegotiate NAFTA to improve labour standards, which is promising - although of course the US will want the deal to favour themselves so we'll have to keep on our toes.

Other issues that interest me, such as ending the embargo on Cuba and pursuing a just peace between Israel and Palestine, are probably not going to see any progress - both the Cuban expats and Israel have very powerful lobbies in the US and, by his platform, Obama is largely going along with them.

Issue #2 is probably poverty. He doesn't have as large a focus on this than he'd like but his economic policies are, based on historical precedent and economic working, going to be better for the poor than McCain's. I've posted the Democrat v. Republican economic anti-poverty stats on other threads - and the well-being of the lower and lower-middle classes has dropped substantially ever since economics took a rightward turn in the 1980s.

3. Who do you think would be the best VP pick for each candidate?
I'd rather like to see Edwards as Obama's VP - it would do a lot for my second priority - but he doesn't bring a great deal to the ticket: he only had a small segment of the working class on side. Hillary would bring her Democratic supporters, but would probably alienate independents - and I'm becoming convinced she would be a terrible VP. I don't know a lot about the other options.

For McCain, Romney seems logical - he will get respect on the economy because he's a successful businessman (so he knows how to make the economy work for businessmen, an awful lot THAT does for the average blue-collar worker - but a lot of people don't think about it that way), and he will bring the base with more enthusiasm. Both of those are things McCain needs. However, I can't stand Romney because I find him, strangely, both a radical (in his current positions) and a phoney (looking at his previous positions, and some blatantly disingenuous statements), so I'm hoping McCain doesn't pick him. If it wasn't for McCain's need to court the base, Giuliani seems like he would be a good fit with him.

4. How do you feel about the campaigns Obama and McCain have run so far?
McCain's has been a bit listless - he won the primary largely by process of elimination as the people leading him fell out for one reason or another. Obama's has been well managed in the financial arena (unlike McCain's) and has been well-run on the ground in terms of getting volunteers in place. He dealt with the first phase of the Rev. Wright controversy very well (I hugely admire that speech of his), but came out looking contradictory when Rev. Wright made dumping him something of a political necessity, and he shouldn't have left his church now - the statements by the other pastor weren't even controversial IMO.

Obama's campaign has also been conspicuously short on details in the speeches. I think that's part of the reason he lost the working class - people who are more affected by economic turns are more likely to want policy details and less likely to be distracted by high-sounding rhetoric. He needs to change that and make some strong policy arguments against McCain, not just the use the repeated phrase of "George Bush's third term". Show how and why his proposals will work and McCain's won't.

However, if the VP slot goes to a woman other than Hillary Clinton, I fear that wouldn't play well.
I agree. Some political commentators are saying it would help Obama with Hillary supporters, but to me it smacks of tokenism. Obama supporters wouldn't think much of it if Hillary had won and decided to pick a random black guy as her VP.

Richardson sounds like a decent choice, someone with international affairs experience would help Obama. I can imagine the more unsavory right-wing pundits talking about the 'affirmative action ticket' already, though.

1. Have you decided who you will (would) vote for?

Obama.

2. Which issues are the most important to you? Health care? Iraq? The economy? Which candidate do you think is stronger on the issues that matter to you?

Currently, the economy.

3. Who do you think would be the best VP pick for each candidate?

I haven't given much thought to McCain's running mate.
I favor Bill Richardson or Chuck Hagel at the moment for Obama's running mate. (Clinton would be far too polarizing a figure to make a good VP choice. And that's just one of the problems with her.)

4. How do you feel about the campaigns Obama and McCain have run so far? What do you think they will need to do to secure the Presidency?

Obama could win this by sheer charisma alone.

McCain needs to learn how to debate publicly. The text of his last speech read well enough. (June 3rd) Hearing him deliver it however...my God (generic).
In a debate with Obama? It won't be pretty at all. (and I predict that McCain's temper will be revealed in all its unglory. You read it here first.:whistle:)

http://www.bartleby.com/68/27/1727.html

The proper noun is the name of a member of a major American political party; the adjective Democratic is used in its official name, the Democratic party. Democrat as an adjective is still sometimes used by some twentieth-century Republicans as a campaign tool but was used with particular virulence by the late senator Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin, a Republican who sought by repeatedly calling it the Democrat party to deny it any possible benefit of the suggestion that it might also be democratic. Other nations also have political parties with the words Democrat and Democratic in their names. The uncapitalized words democrat and democratic have to do with believers in and supporters of government based on majority rule, the principles of equal rights, and the representative procedures developed to permit these principles to operate. Capitalize only the proper noun and the adjective when it refers to the Democratic party.

Enough.

1. Have you decided who you will (would) vote for?

Well I'm decidedly liberal and would only vote for a Democrat. But I'm an thrilled beyond words that Obama has won the nomination.

2. Which issues are the most important to you? Health care? Iraq? The economy? Which candidate do you think is stronger on the issues that matter to you?

Healthcare, economy, gasoline prices and energy policy in general, Iraq, and global warming. I think Obama has exactly the right policies for these problems, because he actually acknowledges that there are problems that need addressing by government (instead of hoping that private sector will eventually jump in) and he has plans to do something about them.

3. Who do you think would be the best VP pick for each candidate?

I think that John Edwards would help with the rural vote and he connects well with working class voters. Richardson would help with the Latino vote and has foreign policy experience. I know that Clinton would bring some disenchanted supporters along with her, but IMO she has the enormous baggage of her husband, who will and say what he damn pleases when he wants to. I don't that that anyone will be able to keep him on the reservation. So, I think he will get in the way of Obama's policies. And based on her speech tonight, Hillary is not exactly the conciliatory type either, so I don't see her being a supportive Veep.

I really don't care who McCain picks, but I think it might be Huckabee. He might do it to shore up the religious conservatives, but it will terrify Independents.

4. How do you feel about the campaigns Obama and McCain have run so far? What do you think they will need to do to secure the Presidency?

McCain has sounded like a typical Republican, and I haven't seen any new ideas from him. I think that Obama has run a brilliant campaign for someone who I didn't think had a ghost of a chance at first.

I think that Obama needs to address those silly Muslim fears. He also needs to to keep hammering on his policies. Poll after poll show that people seem to want the typical Democratic policies as opposed to the Republican ineffective private sector solutions. He will also have to deal effectively with the inevitable smears that will be hurled at him.

McCain would have to distance himself from Bush and show some of the centrist and independent positions he once seemed to have. I think he really is a conservative and won't be able to do that.

I think that Obama needs to address those silly Muslim fears.

What else can he do ? Drop trou' and prove he's uncircumsized ? Get a Jesus Tattoo ?

However, if the VP slot goes to a woman other than Hillary Clinton, I fear that wouldn't play well.

I agree a Clinton-lite VP could be seen as insulting, however, I heard a rumor that if Barack puts a man on the ticket, McCain might go with a woman ...

It may be that Clinton's legacy is that now there have to be bi-gender tickets.

1. Have you decided who you will (would) vote for?

Pretty much. I am in favor of John McCain, but I am looking forward to the debates.

2. Which issues are the most important to you? Health care? Iraq? The economy? Which candidate do you think is stronger on the issues that matter to you?

National Security, while preserving Liberty. I do not think the Democratic Stance on National Security is in the best interests of the country. John McCain knows how important Liberty is, because he has fought for it. I believe he can balance those two problems better.

On Healthcare, I am more in favor of Hillary's plan than anyone's, so should she become the running mate for Obama, my vote may come down to a coin flip.

On Economy, Republicans tend to have a better track record. Democrats like to spend on things that cause temporary relief for long-term problems. The Republican philosophy is to pour money into larger projects that produce better conditions overall. Many blame Bush for the economy, but I have yet to read or hear any economist refute what I have echoed here many times: The state of the economy today is based upon the foundations laid by The Presidency two terms prior. It takes that long for it all to catch up to us.

3. Who do you think would be the best VP pick for each candidate?

For John McCain I would take Mitt Romney, though I don't think he would accept it. John McCain is not a financial genius, and Mitt Romney has proven he can run businesses. The problem with this election is that no candidate has ever been a Governor. Senators lobby, while Governors run things.

As for Barack Obama, I would pick John Edwards or Hillary Clinton. From a strategic stance, I would take John Edwards because he might be able to draw the fence sitters. Hillary is too far left. From experience in Washington, I would take Hillary. She knows the Hill, and The Hill knows her. I also support her Healthcare ideas.

4. How do you feel about the campaigns Obama and McCain have run so far? What do you think they will need to do to secure the Presidency?

This is a toughy, but I would say that the most impressive has been John McCain's. Several months ago, most were saying that John McCain was done. Some of his less faithful staff bolted, his funding was drying up, and yet he stuck with it. He didn't give up, and took control of his race. He assessed the situation and made the changes that needed to be made to come back and win the Nomination.

Obama and Clinton both ran the toughest tooth and nails fight I have ever seen. I have never seen such determination in two people. My hat's off to both. But, what disenchanted me, was the mudslinging. More often than not, these two would spend more time telling us what was wrong with the other candidate, than what was right with themselves. But, I guess they proved that mathematics is correct, and two negatives make a positive.

Obama's Victory Speech (from last night in Minnesota):

ffLducDlLck

7we4wrx6usE

CA-51I-4e-I

oCeXbYFHJsY

And here's Hillary's Speech in two parts:

efdWnWiv8q8

UVlTSfW6XGg

ETA:

BREAKING NEWS: Dean, Pelosi, Reid set Friday deadline for superdelegates' choices, move to force end to Clinton bid (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/06/dean-pelosi-rei.html)

Can it be that they are going to stand up in order to force Clinton to stand down?

Sigh.

Thanks for the YouTube links, purple. It looks like Hillary is continuing to campaign, even now that Obama has surged past the magic number. I don't know whether to scream or simply shake my head.

Thank you to Nancy and Harry!

I've seen that speech twice now. The second time I conned my daughter into seeing it. She was busy and didn't want to spend the time watching.

It was electrifying. LilyPod must have been thrilled to be there.

At the end Obama plunged into the crowd, which swarmed over him. I could see at least six Secret Service agents surrounding him and checking out the crowd.

Sigh.

Thanks for the YouTube links, purple. It looks like Hillary is continuing to campaign, even now that Obama has surged past the magic number. I don't know whether to scream or simply shake my head.

Thank you to Nancy and Harry!

Analysts think she is campaigning for a VP spot...I agree.

I can't wait for the debates. McCain won't stand a chance.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91153531

Obama's speech on Isreal.
Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper — but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

And with that, You just lost my vote.

He talks about peace, and Palestinian state. Does anyone in their right mind think the Palestinians (along with the muslim world) are going to give up Jerusalem to Isreal. By saying Jerusalem will remain the undivided captital of Israel, he killed any agreement that could have come from any Palestinian 'state'.

Until a brave candidate comes along that is going to take this issue in an honest and fair way, and not just kiss up to Isreal. NO ONE is getting my vote.

1. Have you decided who you will (would) vote for?

Barack Obama.


2. Which issues are the most important to you? Health care? Iraq? The economy? Which candidate do you think is stronger on the issues that matter to you?

Iraq is my non-negotiable, closely followed by the economy and jobs.


3. Who do you think would be the best VP pick for each candidate?

Not Hillary Clinton. I like Hagel.


4. How do you feel about the campaigns Obama and McCain have run so far? What do you think they will need to do to secure the Presidency?[/QUOTE]

It's a bit early to tell, particularly on the Democratic side since Hillary Clinton refuses to accept that she has lost the nomination, let alone concede.

The little I've heard from McCain is not encouraging.

Plus US policy has been for a long time to deny full recognition of Jerusalem as the capital by retaining the embassy in Tel Aviv, like most other nations.

And despite the rhetoric Israel has never been a "Jewish state" as it has always had significant minorities of different faiths.

So unless Obama endorses the ethnic cleansing of non-Jewish Israelis, it should be regarded as a state with a Jewish majority.

Yay a new Poll :clap:

1. Have you decided who you will (would) vote for?
Yes, my vote is going for Obama. I have supported him since the beginning and that hasn't changed. I really think that he is the best person to lead this country at this point in time.

2. Which issues are the most important to you? Health care? Iraq? The economy? Which candidate do you think is stronger on the issues that matter to you?
Homeland security, Environment, getting out of the war...

3. Who do you think would be the best VP pick for each candidate?
I would like to see Huckabee for Mcain

For Obama...anyone but Clinton. I just can't see these two on the same ticket and I can't see Clinton in a sort of passenger seat.

Whoever gets into the white house, the AIPAC wins. It is interesting yet very unfortunate to see that all the candidates have to pledge their allegiance to AIPAC or else...

Overall, I'm (if I could vote that is) for Obama because I fear that Mr. McCain is hell bent on inflicting further horror on the world and the US. If you want proof, look no further than who he has surrounded himself with.

Whoever gets into the white house, the AIPAC wins. It is interesting yet very unfortunate to see that all the candidates have to pledge their allegiance to AIPAC or else...

I can't tell you how much that frustrates me at times. On the other hand, if anyone is going to get the parties to talk to one another, Obama is the man to broker it.

Overall, I'm (if I could vote that is) for Obama because I fear that Mr. McCain is hell bent on inflicting further horror on the world and the US. If you want proof, look no further than who he has surrounded himself with.

There is a strong American majority who agree with you. More than 80% of us want our next president to chart a new course for the country. McCain is trying to co-opt the change mantra - he used the word 32 times in his speech last night - but I don't think many people bought it.

On the subject of McCain's speech, it has been widely panned by both right and left.

John McCain Speaks in New Orleans, Poorly (http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/06/8554_john_mccain_spe.html)

McCain's Speech (http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/mccains_speech.php)

The Lime Green Monster: McCain's Speech Widely Panned (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/03/the-lime-green-monster-mc_n_105044.html)

What do you guys think of McCain stealing Obama's slogan?

McCain "A Leader We Can Believe In."
Obama "Change You Can Believe In."

And it's not accidental. McCain re designed his website to be Obama-esque
Colors - light blue sky, rays of red & white. Top 2 are Obama, bottom is McCain.


http://www.cosforums.com/images/img/9343048470fc77fcba.jpg
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/04/mccain-rips-off-obamas-sl_n_105266.html#comments

I mean, to me it is sign of a McCain loss.
He's re-branded himself to LOSE the Republican Brand & so ABANDONS his base
The act of re-branding PROVES the flip-flop charges Democrats are making
The act of re-branding PROVES he has no new ideology to offer.
Who wants Obama-lite when they could get full flavor Obama?

Or is he re-branding himself as Obama-white ?

Note absence of the tie & blue shirt: An appeal to the blue collar worker ?
Loss of Military star & insignia.

This is the third iteration of the McCain website. Here are the first two:

http://purplehawk.potterskeys.com/mccainweb.jpg

Vanity Fair did a story on all three candidates' web sites a couple of weeks ago: Obama vs. McCain: War of the Web Sites (http://www.vanityfair.com/ontheweb/blogs/daily/2008/05/obama-vs-mccain.html). Interesting to reflect on the title of the story, though. It was published May 21, 2008, and it appears the author had already counted Hillary out. Her web site is discussed at the very bottom of the article.

Is this coming from the party of McCain ?? We haven't heard about it for a long time, but I think it's worth bringing up--the Republican party isn't all that enthralled with McCain.

Let's see how McCain did in South Dakota and Montana:

South Dakota:
McCain 42,657 70% 0
Paul 10,054 17% 0
Huckabee 4,322 7% 0
Uncommitted 1,782 3% 0
*Interesting--even after he received the nomination, he's lacking 30% of the votes going for other republicans (who aren't even running anymore). That, of course, doesn't count the republicans who've left the party and don't appear at all...or the ones who simply stayed home this year because they don't like McCain. I've heard of an awful lot of Republicans that can't bear to vote for a Dem, but will stay home because they don't like McCain either. Many Republicans actually feel him too "liberal" (according to my very-conservative, Texan brother-in-law).

Let's look at Montana:

Montana:
Romney 625 38%
Paul 400 25% 0
McCain 358 22% 0
Huckabee 245 15% 0

He didn't even win there...this was, of course, an earlier election --but he didn't even come in second!

Maybe that was a fluke. Let's check another state--rural, predominately white:

Wyoming: (*caucus, numbers represent delegates)
Romney 8 67%
Thompson 3 25% 0
Hunter 1 8% 0
Giuliani 0 0% 0
Huckabee 0 0% 0
McCain 0 0% 5
Paul 0 0% 0
Uncommitted 0 0% 5

Oh my! Are you sure this guy is your nominee? Would you like a "do-over" on those primaries? --well, to be fair, let's leave the west and go back east to one of the swing states in a more recent race. How about Pennsylvania?

Pennsylvania
McCain 587,210 73%
Paul 128,483 16% 0
Huckabee 91,430 11% 0

Seems there are some republicans who still do not like McCain. Pennsyvania is one of those states where record democratic registration took place...do you think some of the republican voters went over there?

According to records (I'll post the source for all these down further), over 2,200,000 Democrats came out to vote in Pennsylvania. How many Republicans voted? According to 100% of the precincts, about 806,000. Hmm...maybe they just stayed home. But, to be fair, they had their nominee so why bother? Well, about 17 percent felt it important enough to come out and voice their opinion for other candidates (even if they were no longer running).

Doesn't seem like a lot of enthusiam over in Red territory this year about your nominee this cycle. Hard to tell, can't see through the crowd of democratic crowds surrounding the blue campaigns.

Good luck with your theory, though, Dedalus. But, before you point at who's limping along, you should at least hide the crutches.

voting result source: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/


Are you sure she didn't just win the nomination for the seat for the November election?

Lloyd Levine lost his race for the dem senate slot for his seat (yay!). I'm so sick of "Lightbulb" Levine. He's termed out in January and outtahere!...but, all that's another thread.

First, the South Dakota and Pennsylvania results are extremely typical of results after a candidate has become the presumptive nominee: 70-80% rally around the lead candidate, and 20-30% turn out to register in whatever way they can the direction they want the party to go. Look at past primary seasons and see if you don't find that holding true for the most part. But the fact is that presumptive nominees generally win handlily and McCain did - Obama has not. Then you bring up Wyoming from Jan. 5 and Montana from Supertuesday. McCain was not even the frontrunner on Jan. 5, and he was not the 'presumptive nominee' on Supertuesday - in other words, the race was then wide open, and the vote reflects that. I am not saying that everyone is happy with McCain. But the party has largely rallied around him, despite Rush Limbaugh's best efforts, whereas Obama has not been able to get that 70-80% "rally 'round the winner" results that he should have if there were not deep, deep misgivings about him.

What do you guys think of McCain stealing Obama's slogan?

McCain "A Leader We Can Believe In."
Obama "Change You Can Believe In."
QUOTE]

Of course it's a play on Obama's slogan. Obama is just a promise of unknown "change" while McCain is a proven leader. He also ended every segment of his speech the other night with something to the effect of "that's not the change we need". I don't think he's flip-flopping at all. He's pointing out his open mindedness (sp?) and ability to work with both sides compared to Obama's far left record. If you think not wearing a tie is something then what about Obama and the flag pin ordeal. Made a big point of NOT doing it then as soon as the public turned it into a negative it became a standard for him. IMO all a sign he's typical politician who will do whatever it takes to get elected from the change he promises, to disavowing Wright after he said he wouldn't, to wearing a flag pin.

[QUOTE=LoveWeasleys;5047311]
3. Who do you think would be the best VP pick for each candidate?[/I]
I would like to see Huckabee for Mcain

For Obama...anyone but Clinton. I just can't see these two on the same ticket and I can't see Clinton in a sort of passenger seat.

I really like Huckabee as a person but just don't beliee he has the right stuff. Clinton would not be a passenger but a co-pilot. Then again at least she would add experience to the team.

Obama's far left record
I hear this frequently. Limbaugh and any conservative or Republican with an outlet seems to call Obama a socialist, or a left-wing radical, an elitist, or what have you. This is not a new story.

But seriously, I can introduce you to some far-left radicals, and they are absolutely nothing like Barack Obama. I have lived and worked with some hardcore elitists, and Obama doesn't remind me of them in the least. Being on the left side of the Senate isn't like being on the left side of the whole political spectrum--it's not even close. On top of which, calling people "far left" or "far right" really does only describe one aspect of their supposed beliefs or platforms, so it's not even a terribly meaningful description of anyone.

I don't know, none of what the conservatives in the media have said about Obama really surprises me, but because Obama is already rather a great deal to the right of me politically, I don't think calling him far left is really constructive or descriptive.

I also find it odd that Obama's decision to wear a pin or not still seems to matter. I mean, heaven forbid if he has a French tailor.

What do you guys think of McCain stealing Obama's slogan?

McCain "A Leader We Can Believe In."
Obama "Change You Can Believe In."


Of course it's a play on Obama's slogan. Obama is just a promise of unknown "change" while McCain is a proven leader.

How is it "leadership" to be unable to define yourself except as a shadow / copy of the other candidate ?
It rings of ideological hollowness. McCain has so lost this election. I'm so happy !


http://www.cosforums.com/images/img/9343048470fc77fcba.jpg
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/04/mccain-rips-off-obamas-sl_n_105266.html#comments


This is the third iteration of the McCain website. Here are the first two:

http://purplehawk.potterskeys.com/mccainweb.jpg


I think the middle one is an actual military site (ie McCain first ripped off them).

I really like Huckabee as a person but just don't beliene he has the right stuff. Clinton would not be a passenger but a co-pilot. Then again at least she would add experience to the team.

I liked Huckabee, but it looks like Romney wants it more. But Huckabee lost me with assassination joke.

Clinton does not add that much experience. She has no executive experience and being First Lady is "not the same".
Now that the primary is over, let us not delude ourselves about that.

I also find it odd that Obama's decision to wear a pin or not still seems to matter. I mean, heaven forbid if he has a French tailor.

The French cannot sew a crotch correctly.

I hear this frequently. Limbaugh and any conservative or Republican with an outlet seems to call Obama a socialist, or a left-wing radical, an elitist, or what have you. This is not a new story.

Well, yeah... conservatives have spent a lot of money and effort demonizing liberalism and liberals. Trouble is, that's not going to fly this year. All signs point to the need for the GOP and its conservative supporters to take time to regroup, to rebrand. They are at exhaust on ideas. The gap between people who declare themselves Democrats, as opposed to Republicans, has never been greater than it is now.

The young people rallying to Obama represent the next generation of American voters and they aren't buying conservative ideals. They're tired of the partisanship and divisiveness - and they have enough old geezers (like me), and certainly enough thirty-to-forty-somethings, to push their desire for change over the hump.

For anyone who's interested, ABC News has a nice story up about Clinton's concession this Friday and a look back at her campaign and Obama's.

Clinton Preparing to Drop Out of Presidential Race (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4705151&page=1)

What do you guys think of McCain stealing Obama's slogan?

McCain "A Leader We Can Believe In."
Obama "Change You Can Believe In."

Nothing new. If something seems to work grab it.

As Ken Livingstone said in the recent mayoral race in London he'd be mad not to steal policy ideas from the Tories if they were good ideas. "I'm stealing your policies. What sort of idiot, when they hear a good idea, wouldn't take it on board?"

The Evening Standard (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23470409-details/I'll+steal+Boris+ideas,+admits+rattled+Ken/article.do)
Not that it did him any good.

To be fair, both parties spend a lot of time demonizing the other party. It's both just the way politics is, I think, and it's a good way to win in elections - make the other candidate look worse. I have hope that McCain and Obama's respect for each other will mute this particular campaign somewhat, but the attack ads already coming out - including the ones posted on here from the DNC, where they take pretty bad photos and camera angles of McCain and use them for effect - don't give me much hope of that.

For anyone who's interested, ABC News has a nice story up about Clinton's concession this Friday and a look back at her campaign and Obama's.

Clinton Preparing to Drop Out of Presidential Race (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4705151&page=1)

Isn't saying you're going to concede concession?

1. Have you decided who you will (would) vote for? Yes, John McCain. I've been paying attention to this thing from the get-go and he's the candidate that's the most in touch with the issues that are important to me.

2. Which issues are the most important to you? Health care? Iraq? The economy? Which candidate do you think is stronger on the issues that matter to you? Education, the Economy, Iraq (but not as much as it to others), Healthcare, there are others I just can't think of them right now, sorry.

3. Who do you think would be the best VP pick for each candidate? Not Hilary!

I would love for John McCain to pick Mike Huckabee, because he was the guy I supported, but I don't think he would be the best in terms of trying to win. I'm not really sure who make a good VP pick for either candidate.

I don't think John Edwards is a good choice for Obama. He can't win his state of North Carolina. That's sad. What I mean, the state he was senator doesn't really like him anymore. I used to live in North Carolina and that's all I heard. I don't think Edwards would hurt Obama, he just wouldn't help him and there are others out there that would be able to help him.

4. How do you feel about the campaigns Obama and McCain have run so far? What do you think they will need to do to secure the Presidency? Both have shown themselves to be very smart men. Obama has shown himself to be a great speaker. I think McCain has shown himself to be someone that can connect both parties more than any other person that was running for president through the primaries this year.

I think they have both run a good campaign so far. Some things, like the backing of certain religous leaders, has hurt them, but they haven't resorted to negative campaigning yet. We'll see what happens as this thing starts to really heat up.

For McCain to secure the presidency he needs to remain positive and not seek to point out the negatives about his opponent, but to point out the positives about himself. I don't want him to go middle of the road, because I am conservative and I want a conservative president, but I believe McCain can identify with both parties and I believe that will help pull in votes. He also needs to show why he's not the same thing we've had for 8 years. He needs to show that with him there will be a change. He doesn't need to just say it, he needs to really focus on it.

For Obama to secure the presidency, he needs to ne positive, too. He needs to find the issues that are most important to the Americans and discuss them. Discuss why he's the better candidate not why his opponent is worse. He needs to spends some time looking at the areas he didn't do so well in in the primaries and improve. He needs to show us/tell us why he is change not just say that he is change. All I've heard from him is he is change, but I haven't heard why he's change, or how he's going to change Washington. I need to hear his plan and I need to hear before the debates happen.

First, the South Dakota and Pennsylvania results are extremely typical of results after a candidate has become the presumptive nominee: 70-80% rally around the lead candidate, and 20-30% turn out to register in whatever way they can the direction they want the party to go. Look at past primary seasons and see if you don't find that holding true for the most part. But the fact is that presumptive nominees generally win handlily and McCain did - Obama has not. Then you bring up Wyoming from Jan. 5 and Montana from Supertuesday. McCain was not even the frontrunner on Jan. 5, and he was not the 'presumptive nominee' on Supertuesday - in other words, the race was then wide open, and the vote reflects that. I am not saying that everyone is happy with McCain. But the party has largely rallied around him, despite Rush Limbaugh's best efforts, whereas Obama has not been able to get that 70-80% "rally 'round the winner" results that he should have if there were not deep, deep misgivings about him.


Um...yes, we saw the 200 supporters rallying around McCain last night :whistle:

The democratic party will rally around their nominee..but probably in larger numbers. It has only been 24 hours, after all.

There are a lot of angry people out here. A few of them are angry that their primary candidate didn't win last night. I have a feeling that will last until they pull into the next gas station, have to find a third job or watch their property values fall even further until they decide it's just too important to stay mad forever. The country is a mess, and at least 70-80% of the people know it and want a different direction. I guess the other 20% go to McCain rallies if they can muster the enthusiasm.

btw, lime-green really isn't his color.

Ahem... This is more humor than political discussion, but it's so accurate and funny that I can't help posting it. It's the newer version of "Why the chicken crossed the road". The whole list is much longer, but I limited myself to the entries about the three "main" candidates (Hillary hasn't conceded yet, so I'm including her here.) - and because McCain is involved, I can't post it in the Dems thread.

<<BARACK OBAMA: The chicken crossed the road because it was time for a CHANGE! The chicken wanted CHANGE! It's time for CHANGE!

JOHN MC CAIN:
My friends, that chicken crossed the road because he recognized the need to engage in cooperation and dialogue with all the chickens on the other side of the road.

HILLARY CLINTON:
When I was First Lady, I personally helped that little chicken to cross the road. This experience makes me uniquely qualified to ensure -- right from Day One! -- that every chicken in this country gets the chance it deserves to cross the road. But then, this really isn't about me....... >>


:lol: :lol:
They forgot the "you know" in the Hillary entry. She says "You know" as often as McCain says "My friends". :rolleyes:

ETA: Hmm... I highlighted the whole joke in blue, I don't know why 2 paragraphs are still in black. :hmm:

A CBS News poll (RCP site) reports a six point lead for Obama. :)

Analysts think she is campaigning for a VP spot...I agree.
The press keeps going back and forth on this one. :lol: This (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/04/clintons_vice_presidential_cam.html?hpid=topnews) Washington Post article reports that Hillary will accept the position if offered, "in the best interest of the party." I am very uneasy about an Obama/Clinton (Especially after such a bitter campaign)-- it would not deter my support for Obama, but my opinion of him would drop a bit if he chose Hillary as a running mate, in the midst of a campaign that has been all about change. I pray that he won't do it.

A People magazine that I picked up just last week had a nice spread about the Edwards family: John said that he did not plan on ever "running for anything again," so I suppose he's out as a potential VP. I don't know much about the others being considered, but I did like Richardson when I watched the debates...


For anyone who's interested, ABC News has a nice story up about Clinton's concession this Friday and a look back at her campaign and Obama's.

Clinton Preparing to Drop Out of Presidential Race (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=4705151&page=1)
That Obama will be nominated on the anniversary of "I Have A Dream" is poetic beyond words. :sad:



It was electrifying. LilyPod must have been thrilled to be there.
Oh, yeah. :D I was thrilled that I even got in (Sixth row seats!)-- an estimated 15,000 people surrounded the outside of the Xcel because the inside was filled. We arrived hours before it started to ensure we would get in to see him. It was completely wild, and they wouldn't play CNN on the large TVs after 6 central time, so we all screamed especially loud at the news that he had won.

Gallup did a recent poll asking Obama and McCain supporters *why* they are offering those supports to the two candidates, and allowed them to respond in their own voices, then compiled their answers in charts. I thought these were interesting. They're gif files, so I hope everyone can view them (The link is here (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107671/General-Election-Shaping-Change-vs-Experience.aspx) if you cannot)

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080604Voters2_ghbvcf.gif

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080604Voters3_erfvbhg.gif

I am very uneasy about an Obama/Clinton (Especially after such a bitter campaign)-- it would not deter my support for Obama, but my opinion of him would drop a bit if he chose Hillary as a running mate, in the midst of a campaign that has been all about change. I pray that he won't do it.

I don't want her on the ticket either. I was reading something just a a few minutes ago about female House members "mulling over" sending Obama a letter asking him to include Clinton on the ticket.

A People magazine that I picked up just last week had a nice spread about the Edwards family: John said that he did not plan on ever "running for anything again," so I suppose he's out as a potential VP. I don't know much about the others being considered, but I did like Richardson when I watched the debates...

I like Edwards at Justice. He would be a whale of an AG.

That Obama will be nominated on the anniversary of "I Have A Dream" is poetic beyond words. :sad:

I first figured that out about a year ago, when I first began to dream. Now that it's set to become a reality, I can promise you I won't be the only face streaming with tears on the convention floor that evening. It will make up for the loss so many of us felt last night when Hillary prevented what should have been the most healing and thrilling night ever for black Americans.

Whoopi Goldberg sure took offense:

qUhYpjUfCI0

I don't want her on the ticket either. I was reading something just a a few minutes ago about female House members "mulling over" sending Obama a letter asking him to include Clinton on the ticket.

The Whoopi thing isn't playing. --> got it - good discussion. Republicans promoting Hillary divisiveness (!)

I heard the female caucus couldn't get a clear signal from the Clinton campaign on whether to push for it or not. (There's a shocker !).

I don't get this "she needs time" thing. The "math" has been there for weeks. This inflexibility & inability to read the signals is not a good sign for a possible Leader. Bad math is not a tremendous quality either. Remember the satellite that totally failed to land on Mars due to a metric conversion error ?

She may want to be VP, but if it is actually TRUE that Bill is damaged after his open heart surgery (which is not impossible, either de-saturation, or minor clots in brain from heart lung machine), then she may be in a situation where she can't provide a "Bill Behavior Guarantee", where he is actually different, lacking judgment and unable to re-acquire it. I can actually feel for her if she is in that situation. I can feel for both of them.

Further, his speaking and his foundation are a source of wealth that would have to be either disclosed or curtailed for ... 8 years ??? She may prefer to be Governor or do something else.

Finally, the Vanity Fair article said Bill is angry all the time, and he brings out Hillary's worst angels. It is possible that she, at her most open moments, is being distorted by his judgment. Again, I can feel for her in this situation.

But Hillary is a second term Senator, and former First Lady. She just won 17M + votes. She's not in trouble. She will be fine.

I hope she pivots to contribute. This Century needs her.

Further, his speaking and his foundation are a source of wealth that would have to be either disclosed or curtailed for ... 8 years ??? She may prefer to be Governor or do something else.
Actually, the common practice is to divest all outside source of funds into blind trusts. I suppose they'd try to make the case that it is his money and not hers. But it would be a very weak case. If he didn't curtail his current activities, it would make him a magnet for anyone wanting to buy influence directly into the White House. And that's ignoring the fact that it's unlikely he would be a quiet VP spouse that wouldn't detract from or contradict Presidential messages.

I only skimmed the Vanity Fair article, but I made a point of only agreeing with the information that seemed to have corroboration. He is running with a fast crowd. That's easy to ascertain. There isn't anyone who can control what he does or says, since he's an ex-president and feels he doesn't have to answer to anyone. I've seen him in public and that seems the most likely explanation for some of his more outrageous remarks. He does seem angry all the time, although I haven't seen him all the time, but what I have seen has been angry. I'm ignoring the womanizing allegations since there isn't any corroboration. It's likely given his past, but that one has no evidence.

I met Bill Clinton several years ago when he was signing his book My Life, ever so briefly with a quick handshake, and I must say that he didn't look very healthy to me then, and has not looked healthy to me since. On the flip side Hillary started looking stronger and finally in charge of her life versus always being under his thumb.

I really never thought that Bill was a problem to her campaign. Sure he wasn't always fluent or even likable but on the flip his role in her life as been completely changed since the day his affair was outed. He has handled this unique and historic situation better than I think any other man would have and his experience will be invaluable to her no matter what course she chooses to persue after this.

I don't think she will take the VP slot even if it was offered. That's not a step up for her, poltically or personally. If she did I would find that dissapointing. To accept seconds would seem self-defeating when there are far more ambitious projects she can and should tackle. I believe the reason that she is staying in, is that she truly believes(ed) that she was the better candidate. And it's hard to argue the success of her campaign which has really on slowed down only these last few months.

Myhusband, on the other hand, thinks Obama SHOULD take Hillary. He believes that Obama will lose eighty percent of her voters if he doesn't, and will gain at least half if he does. Thereby sealing the deal against McCain.

Obama's outlined his policy on Israel (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91153531#91150432). The short version: nothing changes. He supports Israel and any attacks it chooses to make unconditionally, it is ridiculous to blame Israel for terrorism as it is "the only democracy in the region," the Palestinians will get nothing until they renounce terrorism (and considering that the US regularly labels attacks on military forces as 'terrorism', that essentially means they have to unconditionally surrender before meaningful negotiations can start), he plans to provide Israel $30 billion in defense aid over the next 10 years, and any peace agreement must make leave Jerusalem as completely Israeli territory.

In other words: there is no way a just peace is going to occur in an Obama administration.

I am severely disappointed in him, I hoped he'd be more even-handed considering that the Palestinians are being starved, cut off from clean water supplies and from their work, tortured, and regularly killed by the Israeli army. I don't condone the Palestinian attacks but I do understand them.

If I was an American, I'd be deciding to write in Jimmy Carter on my ballot. I should have known better. This doesn't feel like 'hope' to me.


Obama's speech on Isreal.

And with that, You just lost my vote.

He talks about peace, and Palestinian state. Does anyone in their right mind think the Palestinians (along with the muslim world) are going to give up Jerusalem to Isreal. By saying Jerusalem will remain the undivided captital of Israel, he killed any agreement that could have come from any Palestinian 'state'.
I agree with you 100% (if I had a vote, that is). So much for bucking the special interests - he's already in their pocket.

I like Edwards at Justice. He would be a whale of an AG.



Which is something we'll need in terms of rebalancing the scales and all that. (still waiting on Rove...)

PBS Newshour had Gwen Ifill interviewing James Clyburn on history being made last night. I got teary eyed all over again. Link with video http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june08/obamahistory_06-04.html

I saw a clip of Obama saying that he's looking for the VP who'll best fit into his administration. Seems most of the media fuss is about who'll help him with this or that voting bloc, when maybe this is a non-issue. I don't remember VP picks as having much influence in past elections and I don't see this changing much unless Clinton is invited. I'm still stuck on Richardson, not only for foreign relations but also because of what he's done for the economy and infrastructure in New Mexico. I'll dig up some links at some point, but I've heard a lot of raves from people in the Southwest. He's also been a great help to Obama behind the scenes, phoning superdelagates and so on.

As for McCain, IMO he has to move back to the center if he's going to have any shot at this thing. (though he can keep moving further right far as I'm concerned.) I do like the idea of town hall meetings this summer. After 20 democratic debates, I might go into withdrawls before September.

Both candidates have been on the hustings for more than a year. Surely that's long enough to decide on a running-mate.

The Whoopi thing isn't playing. --> got it - good discussion. Republicans promoting Hillary divisiveness (!)

You bet they are! The new RNC ad:

6bG4Oezg6wQ

I heard the female caucus couldn't get a clear signal from the Clinton campaign on whether to push for it or not. (There's a shocker !).

I was talking to some people this evening about that very thing. Turns out the Capitol Hill crowd was united in urging her to accept the reality that she has no path to the nomination. Even Rangel took that position.

I don't get this "she needs time" thing. The "math" has been there for weeks. This inflexibility & inability to read the signals is not a good sign for a possible Leader. Bad math is not a tremendous quality either.

I don't either. Whoopi was right when she said last night was all about Hillary.

But Hillary is a second term Senator, and former First Lady. She just won 17M + votes. She's not in trouble. She will be fine.

I hope she pivots to contribute. This Century needs her.

Here's a good story: Wounded, but it's not the end of Hillary Clinton's story (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/06/04/2008-06-04_wounded_but_its_not_the_end_of_hillary_c.html)

Obama's outlined his policy on Israel (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91153531#91150432). The short version: nothing changes. He supports Israel and any attacks it chooses to make unconditionally, it is ridiculous to blame Israel for terrorism as it is "the only democracy in the region," the Palestinians will get nothing until they renounce terrorism (and considering that the US regularly labels attacks on military forces as 'terrorism', that essentially means they have to unconditionally surrender before meaningful negotiations can start), he plans to provide Israel $30 billion in defense aid over the next 10 years, and any peace agreement must make leave Jerusalem as completely Israeli territory.

In other words: there is no way a just peace is going to occur in an Obama administration.

I am severely disappointed in him, I hoped he'd be more even-handed considering that the Palestinians are being starved, cut off from clean water supplies and from their work, tortured, and regularly killed by the Israeli army. I don't condone the Palestinian attacks but I do understand them.

If I was an American, I'd be deciding to write in Jimmy Carter on my ballot. I should have known better. This doesn't feel like 'hope' to me.


I agree with you 100% (if I had a vote, that is). So much for bucking the special interests - he's already in their pocket.The US policy will remain to be strong backing for the state of Israel and an undivided Jerusalem. There's too much emotionalism on the issue of Jerusalem, even for Jews like me who detest the current Israeli treatment of Palestinians. This would be especially true when presenting ideas to a Jewish lobbying group. But that doesn't translate into unequivocal backing for all Israeli policy, especially some of the more egregious acts of late. Nor does it mean a lack of sensitivity to the plight of the Palestinians. I would expect Obama to be more open to new ideas on these issues than McCain (or Clinton had she won). In fact, Obama has had to fight an image that has been too critical of Israel, hence his recent statements.

On the flip side Hillary started looking stronger and finally in charge of her life versus always being under his thumb.
I'm no great judge of such things, but Hillary has always looked to me as a strong woman, not under anybody's thumb, least of all ol' Bubba's. JMHO.

I think it would be a mistake for Obama to pick her as Veep, she brings too much baggage (including ol' Bubba) with her, and her "experience" argument works against her in this case. Obama's message is "change", and she's "politics as usual" - big campaign contributors, big business deals, political deals, my way or the highway.

If push comes to shove, it is my guess that her supporters, even if disappointed, will vote Obama rather than McCain. Maybe I'm too optimistic? Time will tell.

Whoever gets into the white house, the AIPAC wins. It is interesting yet very unfortunate to see that all the candidates have to pledge their allegiance to AIPAC or else...

Yeah...Obama Works A Tough Room at AIPAC (http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080604/cm_thenation/1096326710)

Virtually every speech ever delivered to an AIPAC conference, going back 54 years to the first AIPAC conclave, is a litany of pro-Israeli shibboleths. Obama didn't disappoint.

That sort of thing will likely only end when our need for oil ends.

I think it would be a mistake for Obama to pick her as Veep, she brings too much baggage (including ol' Bubba) with her, and her "experience" argument works against her in this case. Obama's message is "change", and she's "politics as usual" - big campaign contributors, big business deals, political deals, my way or the highway.


Agreed.
But not just that. He'd have to keep a tight rein on her 24/7 to ensure she doesn't play president while his back was turned.

[Staff edit - off-topic]

Yeah...Obama Works A Tough Room at AIPAC

Virtually every speech ever delivered to an AIPAC conference, going back 54 years to the first AIPAC conclave, is a litany of pro-Israeli shibboleths. Obama didn't disappoint.

That sort of thing will likely only end when our need for oil ends.

In his defence Obama is hardly going to be critical of Israel in that room.

Before this veers any more wildly off-topic the time will come soon (and I'd like to see it in this campaign but I doubt we will) is a candidate presenting a post-cheap oil policy.

Global warming aside the world will have to wean itself off oil and that will require significant planning starting now.

It would be interesting if the two candidates get asked that question how they'll deal with it.

[Staff edit - off-topic]

I think Obama's statement is sad but absolutely predictable. But perhaps if he wins he will do more to get a settlement than this administration has. I have little expectation that McCain will change the status quo.

I think Obama's statement is sad but absolutely predictable. But perhaps if he wins he will do more to get a settlement than this administration has. I have little expectation that McCain will change the status quo.

It is impossible to solve the Palestinian problem during an election campaign. To me, no one should expect nuanced statements of policy, where the landscape of negotiation will be strongly influenced by opportunity, personality, and a bit of sleight of hand, to be bluntly stated to any idiot on the street. Elections promote intolerant statements. Absolutism is easier to understand.

I trust Obama to make a real & smart effort (vs last year in office gambit).

NEW YORK — Michelle Obama will be a guest host on "The View" on June 18. The popular ABC daytime talk show had invited her to be a guest this month, but she sent back word that she would like to be a host like Cindy McCain did in April, said Bill Geddie, the show's executive producer.

I think all the reporters are getting over hangovers. The news sites don't seem to be updating that fast. Either that or it's taken me one week to become completely internet obsessed again.

My husband, on the other hand, thinks Obama SHOULD take Hillary. He believes that Obama will lose eighty percent of her voters if he doesn't, and will gain at least half if he does. Thereby sealing the deal against McCain.

To me, that is a Republican MAN's wet dream, all those voters.

But McCain is anti-Choice AND he's acquiesced to the party platform of "with no exceptions" even rape & incest, he has promised his right wing to appoint anti-Roe v Wade judges, and we heard him last night say that he supports the war but wants to get rid of big government spending. Well if you keep the war - what do you cut along the lines of "BIG GOV'T SPENDING" ? Given the war costs $3 billion A WEEK. Answer: domestic spending: education, welfare. Further, he has no health care plan at all. My mom looked his over, and said it's worse than what we have now, AND Elizabeth Edwards says it would exclude all prior conditions - including hers AND John McCain's !!!

I suggest that any THINKING woman voter will not find a substitution of McCain for Hillary an easy thing to do. The feminist elites that promoted Hillary won't be able to tolerate it. You can expect Elizabeth Edwards to oppose it. So after Hillary has her "moment", you can expect all Democratic women to be on the road for Obama.

I think the best thing Hillary can do is give a barn burning speech about women's issues and why Obama is the better choice. I would feel very good about that.

Before this veers any more wildly off-topic the time will come soon (and I'd like to see it in this campaign but I doubt we will) is a candidate presenting a post-cheap oil policy.

Global warming aside the world will have to wean itself off oil and that will require significant planning starting now.

Obama said today at AIPAC that a sound U.S. energy policy would prevent the U.S. funding sources of terror against Israel (ie Iran & oil producing countries), which I thought was a good point.

Okay, back on topic please.

Thanks

Several posts have been deleted/editted per Morgoth's "Back on Topic" edict.

If you wish to continue with a History lesson, please do so via owls. Thank you.

Here's a good map of Obama (green) vs Clinton (blue) (graphic mid page).
"Where the candidates found support" http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/index.html (<--better map when accessed through newspaper page) http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/06/05/us/politics/0605-nat-PRIMARIES.jpg

Apparently Obama 52% of delegates to Clinton 48% of delegates and he was NEVER TRAILING in the delegate count. (the risk was that super-delegates would break for her -- he played that game really well !).

The top graphic is the size of his lead (ie he was always in the delegate lead). ("Oh ye of little faith!").

It's a real map of Hispanic vs African American populations too ! The Clinton blue traces Appalachia and high catholic areas. Colorado (a swing state) looks very Obaman. Also site of DNC Convention. (Democrats --> tip big !). Florida looks blue (Clinton).

Apparently he took every state where African Americans were more than 1/6th of the population.

He took his home county by a lead of 429,000 votes (his ultimate popular vote lead).

To me the real issue here is Hispanic voters. *cough* Richardson.

Democratic Veepstakes


Gov. "Bill" Richardson is a second term Governor, getting about 75% of local vote. Hispanic, Catholic, 1 wife, from New Mexico (swing state), from south west !!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Richardson


Gov. Strickland of Ohio (swing state) is only a first term Governor, who won with a narrower margin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Strickland


Sen. Jim Webb (Virginia, Appalachian, Military) has an Asian wife. How wild would that ticket be? He went to school with Oliver North & Michael Hagee !!! Eek --> Webb's been married 3 times !!! (record screeches to a halt...) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Webb


What about Gov. Rendell (PA)? Labor, Jewish, Archie Bunker, Clinton Supporter, served in military 1968-1974, also a second term Governor. Works well with African Americans. Not against Bob Casey Jr. Spouse is a Judge ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Rendell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjorie_Rendell

To me it's Richardson or Rendell.
I guess Claire McCaskill is another choice, but I don't think Obama will chose a woman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claire_McCaskill

The Guardian (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2008/06/04/AMERICA_MCCAIN.pdf) has some interesting maps on US demographics. (It's an extremely large pdf file) It shows that Vermont, Americas 'whitest' state is also the most pro-Obama. (Possibly because of the war where it has suffered the worst losses of any state.) On the basis of current polls Obama will squeeze in by a very narrow margin.

I heard it's like a U, low Af.Am or high Af.Am he wins, but around 10% and he loses. I don't know why.
The northeastern states are like Scandanavia (sp?). Very liberal.

I heard it's like a U, low Af.Am or high Af.Am he wins, but around 10% and he loses. I don't know why.
The northeastern states are like Scandanavia (sp?). Very liberal.
Actually he is likely to lose in most states with a high proportion of African Americans despite his massive support among them. Though he's fairly close in the Carolinas. (As an aside I wonder if he'll even bother to campaign in Utah or Oklahoma)

Actually he is likely to lose in most states with a high proportion of African Americans despite his massive support among them. Though he's fairly close in the Carolinas.

I agree. RCP polls show McCain with sizable leads in states like Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, and Georgia, and smaller leads in the Carolinas and Virgina-- all states where Obama had solid victories in the primaries. I believe he has a good chance to win North Carolina and Virginia this year, but I expect the rest of the South to go Republican this year, though perhaps by smaller margins than in the last election...

Georgia has an estimated 500,000 unregistered black voters (http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/georgias-500000-unregistered-black-voters). Obama's "Vote for Change (http://my.barackobama.com/voteforchange)" effort is going to snag a whole lot of those voters - and unregistered voters in other states - this summer and fall. We have an awesome online interface for our 1.5 million donors and volunteers to directly persuade their neighbors through a variety of media. By November, we should double the number of individuals volunteering (and donating) on his behalf.

If anyone is interested in what the pundits are saying about how Clinton lost, or how Obama beat her, Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2192952/?from=rss) has assembled some of the best stories. Lots of good links there.

Of course the comments to the 500,000 unregistered Dems article illustrate why Obama probably won't win in the South.

You could have knocked me over with a feather when I first heard that number, Judes. How could there be that many unregistered voters in one state? :wow:

You could have knocked me over with a feather when I first heard that number, Judes. How could there be that many unregistered voters in one state? :wow:

Because here in Georgia you have to put your ethnicity on your voter registration card. Black people are routinely threatened when they try to exercise the right to vote down here.

Here's a link where you can see the Georgia application form.

http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:LDhVImcry-MJ:www.sos.georgia.gov/elections/voter_registration/GA%2520VOTER%2520REGISTRATION%2520%2520APP(Fill_20 07).pdf+georgia+ethnicity+on+voter+registration&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Georgia has an estimated 500,000 unregistered black voters (http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/georgias-500000-unregistered-black-voters).

You could have knocked me over with a feather when I first heard that number, Judes. How could there be that many unregistered voters in one state? :wow:

I really don't think that is an unusually large number of adults choosing not to register in a state as populous as Georgia. I know there are a lot of people who choose not to register because they are trying to avoid jury duty. Others don't register because they are avoiding other responsibilities. And as we both know, for whatever the root causes are, there is a disproportionate number of black adults, especially men, who are not eligible to vote because of felony convictions.

Because here in Georgia you have to put your ethnicity on your voter registration card. Black people are routinely threatened when they try to exercise the right to vote down here.

Here's a link where you can see the Georgia application form.

http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:LDhVImcry-MJ:www.sos.georgia.gov/elections/voter_registration/GA%2520VOTER%2520REGISTRATION%2520%2520APP(Fill_20 07).pdf+georgia+ethnicity+on+voter+registration&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

It is federal law that requires the states covered by the Voting Rights Act (If I recall the name correctly) to ask the race of the registrant. That facilitates the drawing of districts to ensure minority districts.

As for the 'routinely threatened', I am sure there is some measure of it, particularly in some of the rural districts, although another effect of the race-conscious districting is that the polling places are generally mostly-black and mostly-white, both in voters and staffers. I suppose that makes it 'routine' but the word carries the implication of it being 'common' or even 'rampant' and that I would heartily disagree with. The Atlanta paper would love nothing more than to present a hard-hitting series on suppression of black voting, but from the reportage, it would appear that 'threats' are rarely employed, and other dirty tricks to manipulate the vote turnout are used by both parties.

federal law[/b] that requires the states covered by the Voting Rights Act (If I recall the name correctly) to ask the race of the registrant. That facilitates the drawing of districts to ensure minority districts.

This is completely FALSE. Many states don't even bother asking for this information, and in other states it is completely optional. Let's stick to facts, okay?

suppose that makes it 'routine' but the word carries the implication of it being 'common' or even 'rampant' and that I would heartily disagree with. The Atlanta paper would love nothing more than to present a hard-hitting series on suppression of black voting, but from the reportage, it would appear that 'threats' are rarely employed, and other dirty tricks to manipulate the vote turnout are used by both parties.Are you a black person in Georgia? I doubt it. Besides, there are something like 42 racist organizations here. I suspect you didn't know that, since its below the radar of most white people. Let me assure you they are not beign rainbow-and-unicorn organizations.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp#s=GA

/done talking to you. I don't like debaters who purposelly use false information to promote their point like you did with the Voting Rights Act.

http://www.justvote.org/reg/GA.pdf
The Georgia registration form application can be found at the above site. It does indeed ask for race/ethnicy along with are you a resident of Georgia, 18+, if you have been convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude and are mentally incompetent. In small print it says "race and gender are requested and are needed to comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but are optional".

This is completely FALSE. Many states don't even bother asking for this information, and in other states it is completely optional. Let's stick to facts, okay?

Sticking to facts, there are states it appears that are obligated Federally to ask for race as part of the voter registration:

http://www.calvoter.org/issues/votprivacy/pub/voterprivacy/discussion.html

This link references 9 including PA. The "Race" section also refers to the Voters Rights Act of 1965 as the root of that requirement, so as the post may have been from memory as this is a debate forum, and as this reply was obviously done without complete term paper research as well, it might be more benificial to discuss this more.

Are you a black person in Georgia? I doubt it. Besides, there are something like 42 racist organizations here. I suspect you didn't know that, since its below the radar of most white people. Let me assure you they are not beign rainbow-and-unicorn organizations.

Are you every black person in Georgia? This is a pretty divisive tactic, IMO and shows more personal indignation than insight. Were you ever a 15 year old white kid in Baltimore City? If you were your perspective would be a lot different on a plethera of topics, I can assure you, so it is probably best that we attempt to see other people's perspectives without IMO, undue self-importance. I am sure those groups exist and that they are monitored and are active. I am equally sure that 4 black teens almost killing a white kid in Baltimore isn't tracked as a hate crime or looked at a racism, despite the motive being racial in nature. I would submit that as we all have different experiences, attempting to negate other people's perspectives is counterproductive to understanding and being understood.



done talking to you. I don't like debaters who purposelly use false information to promote their point like you did with the Voting Rights Act.


Is this some pot and kettle here? The act exists and appearantly concerns the mandatory request for race on registrations, so while you are correct that it isn't every state that is required, the assertion that it is completely false seems overstated and this dismissal, IMO uncalled for. If you are going to debate at all, you will have people disagree with your positions. Out of hand dismissals are pretty useless in making any type of point, other than attempting to appear intollerant of people disagreeing with you.

Ponders which tension-lowering tactic to employ...

Time to take a few deep breath folks.

Debate the facts - personal attacks on other members is not helpful to thread harmony.

Added as an edit...sticking to the topic of the thread, on the other hand, does help to keep tensions lower. Try it!

This is completely FALSE. Many states don't even bother asking for this information, and in other states it is completely optional. Let's stick to facts, okay?

Are you a black person in Georgia? I doubt it. Besides, there are something like 42 racist organizations here. I suspect you didn't know that, since its below the radar of most white people. Let me assure you they are not beign rainbow-and-unicorn organizations.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp#s=GA


Of those 42 "racist organizations", 9 of them were listed as black organizations. Most of those are large enough to have gotten public notice. I have not heard of any of the others, although it is difficult to keep track of organizations with 'Aryan', 'National Socialist', and 'Ku Klux Klan' in their names, as they spring up and disappear like wildflowers. Several were non-racial and a few were indeterminate from the descriptions. Also important is the size, cohesiveness, and activities of the organizations. So the point is that while you found a list with quite a number of organizations listed as 'hate groups', they are not all about 'oppressing blacks' or suppressing black votes, and there is no indication of any of them having any activities at all, much less in the area of voting.

/done talking to you. I don't like debaters who purposelly use false information to promote their point like you did with the Voting Rights Act.

Is this some pot and kettle here?

I don't think so, at least I have always understood the 'pot and kettle' metaphor to suggest that the accuser is as guilty as the person accused. I, the accused, was right, as you and Grams showed, Georgia and several other 'Old South' states are required to gather racial identifications of voters.


Okay, to return us to the immediate topic of the election, here is a thoughtful consideration of Obama.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121254834844844045.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks

This is the Obama Americans don't know. For all of his inspiring rhetoric about bipartisanship, his voting record is among the most partisan in the Senate. His policy agenda is conventionally liberal across the board – more so than Hillary Clinton's, and more so than that of any Democratic nominee since 1968.
We can't find a single issue on which Mr. Obama has broken with his party's left-wing interest groups. Early on he gave a bow to merit pay for teachers, but that quickly sank beneath the waves of new money he wants to spend on the same broken public schools. He takes the Teamsters line against free trade, to the point of unilaterally rewriting Nafta. He wants to raise taxes even above the levels of the Clinton era, including a huge increase in the payroll tax.

Fair warning. The US Election is scheduled for November 4th, 2008. Right, people who ignore staff warnings, polite notices to get back on topic etc will be banned until November 5th. I'm not going to spend the next five months in race-war debates trying to keep the peace. You can do your time on the touchline as far as I care.

Ponders which tension-lowering tactic to employ...

Time to take a few deep breath folks.

Debate the facts - personal attacks on other members is not helpful to thread harmony.

Added as an edit...sticking to the topic of the thread, on the other hand, does help to keep tensions lower. Try it!

ADMIN RECAP: RESPECT THIS. Or. Else.

I've owled a number of people in this thread. Please move on in a polite and reasonable fashion. Now.

I just check my owlry :scared: nothing <whew>
:lol:
Yes, Ma'am..sirs :D

Okay, how about this piece of interesting interaction off the Huffington wires.

Lieberman and Obama have been exchanging a few rounds of fire over foreign policy, specifically Israel and middle-east policy. Apparently, the two legislators ran into each other in the senate on Wednesday:

Furthermore, during a Senate vote Wednesday, Obama dragged Lieberman by the hand to a far corner of the Senate chamber and engaged in what appeared to reporters in the gallery as an intense, three-minute conversation.

While it was unclear what the two were discussing, the body language suggested that Obama was trying to convince Lieberman of something and his stance appeared slightly intimidating.

Using forceful, but not angry, hand gestures, Obama literally backed up Lieberman against the wall, leaned in very close at times, and appeared to be trying to dominate the conversation, as the two talked over each other in a few instances.

Still, Obama and Lieberman seemed to be trying to keep the back-and-forth congenial as they both patted each other on the back during and after the exchange.

Afterwards, Obama smiled and pointed up at reporters peering over the edge of the press gallery for a better glimpse of their interaction.

Obama loyalists were quick to express their frustration with Lieberman's decision and warned that if he continues to take a lead role in attacking Obama it could complicate his professional relationship with the Caucus....(full article at link)

Wouldn't you have liked to be a fly on the wall in that corner? I guess when Obama reaches across the aisle...he really does, literally :lol:

Lieberman/Obama "discussion" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/04/lieberman-carries-mccains_n_105179.html)

Holy poofleball! I knew there was a good reason I had to be away for several hours. Relax, folks. The staff is extending this opportunity for us to discuss the historic presidential election of 2008, in which one of the candidates just happens to be the first African-American to win his Party's nomination.

We know the issue of race is going to crop up, as it has during the primaries, but think a moment - ! Senator Obama's candidacy is based on a promise of unity and hope. McCain is speaking a similar message of inclusion. We're doing both candidates an injustice to let this thread disintegrate into a race war and, judging from what I've just read, causing Morgoth, Jessica, and other members of the always excellent CoS staff to pull their hair out. Think another moment: If Lanifiel had been here, most of us would be looking at a crater on our screens where this thread used to be.

"We are not as divided as our politics suggest, that we are one people, we are one nation."

[removed by Jessica - not necessary]


That bit about Obama accosting Lieberman is rather disquieting. It seems like the same sort of physical bullying that B. Clinton was so renowned - or more accurately infamous - for (IMO).

It said his gestures were not angry, but strong. They patted each other on the backs during and after discussing.

It seems like he's not afraid to talk to his opponents face to face. If you have something to say, look someone in the eye and say it. Frankly, I admire that in a person. Beats going sneakily behind backs, behind closed doors, or misrepresenting and twisting semantics.

Senator Obama has announced he is changing the DNC's fundraising policies, effective today, to prohibit accepting contributions from federal lobbyists and political action committees. He also announced that his own fundraising events will include at least one pool reporter. Both moves are in stark contrast to the status quo in both parties. There's change you can believe in. We'll see if the GOP follows suit.

Obama aims to make openness an issue (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/10871.html)

Tom Daschle, former Senate Majority Leader and Obama supporter, has indicated he's "warm" to the idea of becoming Secretary of Health and Human Services (http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressdaily/cda_20080605_5814.php). He's giving the politically correct replies such as it's premature to be thinking about whatever, of course, but I think he'd be outstanding in that role.

It said his gestures were not angry, but strong. They patted each other on the backs during and after discussing.

It seems like he's not afraid to talk to his opponents face to face. If you have something to say, look someone in the eye and say it. Frankly, I admire that in a person. Beats going sneakily behind backs, behind closed doors, or misrepresenting and twisting semantics.

The terms from the quoted material: "Obama dragged Lieberman by the hand...", "Obama ... stance appeared slightly intimidating", and "Obama literally backed up Lieberman against the wall, leaned in very close at times, and appeared to be trying to dominate the conversation." I don't care if the article said 'angry' or not - these are bullying tactics and entirely inappropriate (IMO).

I think bullying is a bit strong, Dedalus, for all we know, they could have been talking about lunch plans.

McCain has had at least one pushing and shoving match (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/_97626.html) on the Senate floor. The one I linked involved Charles Grassley, a fellow senator from Iowa. There are reports of similar altercations with Rick Renzi and John Cornyn.

That bit about Obama accosting Lieberman is rather disquieting. It seems like the same sort of physical bullying that B. Clinton was so renowned - or more accurately infamous - for (IMO).

I was amazed by that article:
1. I have never seen Obama use anything but gentle, civilized body language. He was President of Harvard Law Review for goodness sake!
2. I think this is designed to play into a stereotype.

The problem with Obama being a "racial" candidate whereas IN REALITY he is MY DEMOCRATIC PARTY's NOMINEE (me being a white professional 43 yr female in California, and Democrats representing a vast number of people & ethnic groups) is that it sparks "white defensive voting" in southern states (for lack of a better descriptive word). This really is Obama's challenge. He did really well with it in the primary. Enemies will force him into "Jesse Jackson" mold to try to get that "anti-" vote out.

I understand Obama is taking a biography tour to stress his Kansas roots. His "DNA" represents both sides of America.

Actually, his dad from Kenya was a Ph.D economist. I've heard some commentators refer to Obama as "descended from slaves" (!), but really, his African side of the family was never enslaved. I think he has avoided that terrible internal fracture / scarring from "America's birth defect", and one of his major motives is to heal that ongoing divide (sorry if my metaphors are mixed).

He is my candidate, and I am not going to discuss race for the rest of this campaign. There are conservative blacks (Keyes)(Condaleeza Rice) who I would never vote for and there are conservative females I would never vote for. I DO look at the ISSUES they are promoting / opposing.

I was amazed by that article:
1. I have never seen Obama use anything but gentle, civilized body language. He was President of Harvard Law Review for goodness sake!
2. I think this is designed to play into a stereotype.

The problem with Obama being a "racial" candidate whereas IN REALITY he is MY DEMOCRATIC PARTY's NOMINEE (me being a white professional 43 yr female in California, and Democrats representing a vast number of people & ethnic groups) is that it sparks "white defensive voting" in southern states (for lack of a better descriptive word). This really is Obama's challenge. He did really well with it in the primary. Enemies will force him into "Jesse Jackson" mold to try to get that "anti-" vote out.

I understand Obama is taking a biography tour to stress his Kansas roots. His "DNA" represents both sides of America.

Actually, his dad from Kenya was a Ph.D economist. I've heard some commentators refer to Obama as "descended from slaves" (!), but really, his African side of the family was never enslaved. I think he has avoided that terrible internal fracture / scarring from "America's birth defect", and one of his major motives is to heal that ongoing divide (sorry if my metaphors are mixed).

He is my candidate, and I am not going to discuss race for the rest of this campaign. There are conservative blacks (Keyes)(Condaleeza Rice) who I would never vote for and there are conservative females I would never vote for. I DO look at the ISSUES they are promoting / opposing.

Wow! The original article was from a leftwing blog site, so there is no reason to suggest any effort to demonize Obama. No mention was made of race: I compared him to B. Clinton's reputed penchant for bullying tactics - no hint of race there, no comparison to any black people. [removed by Jessica]

I think bullying is a bit strong, Dedalus, for all we know, they could have been talking about lunch plans.
Perhaps it was lunch plans, but the article made clear that very aggressive body language was used - leaning in close, backing against a wall, etc. Who cares what the conversation is about - Obama was observed using very aggressive and, I think, inappropriate interpersonal tactics.

Here's something that should give us all a laugh. Jon Stewart has a go at all three candidates' speeches this past Tuesday. This is great.

FLVsGioeCSM

I hope that clip will be on tonight.

I hope that clip will be on tonight.

Oh! Did I mess it up for you? Sorry...

Sounds like a fair amount of corruption in Illinois fund raising.

.CHICAGO — A prominent fundraiser for Sen. Barack Obama and Gov. Rod Blagojevich was convicted Wednesday of fraud and money laundering after a high-profile federal trial provided an unusually detailed glimpse of the pay-to-play politics that has made Illinois infamous.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,363364,00.html

Oh! Did I mess it up for you? Sorry...

No, not you--I'm on dialup and just can't download those huge files (not without shuting everything down for hours).

Sounds like a fair amount of corruption in Illinois fund raising.

.CHICAGO — A prominent fundraiser for Sen. Barack Obama and Gov. Rod Blagojevich was convicted Wednesday of fraud and money laundering after a high-profile federal trial provided an unusually detailed glimpse of the pay-to-play politics that has made Illinois infamous.

Old news. I think this has been discussed a lot on the threads. Obama was cleared of any involvment and any money this guy contributed to Obama's campaign was given to charity. Most of us have turned the page on this. Others keep trying the same "guilt by association" argument over and over with the same result.

Old news. I think this has been discussed a lot on the threads. Obama was cleared of any involvment and any money this guy contributed to Obama's campaign was given to charity. Most of us have turned the page on this. Others keep trying the same "guilt by association" argument over and over with the same result.


CHICAGO — A prominent fundraiser for Sen. Barack Obama and Gov. Rod Blagojevich was convicted Wednesday of fraud and money laundering after a high-profile federal trial provided an unusually detailed glimpse of the pay-to-play politics that has made Illinois infamous.

Not exactly old news since he was just convicted yesterday.

The charges against Rezko had nothing to do with Obama, who has donated $150,000 in Rezko-related contributions to charity.

Smart political move on Obama's part but I'm not surprised, he has some good political advisers.

Chicago has had a reputation for some crazy stuff, but "pay-to-play" is hardly limited to Chicago politics. The Real Scandal: Our Pay-to-Play Campaign Finance System (http://www.campaignmoney.org/blog/2006/01/17/the-real-scandal-our-pay-to-play-campaign-finance-system) discusses scams that brought down a good number of Republican legislators, including: Tom DeLay, Bob Ney, Duke Cunningham, and the lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

California Rep. John Doolittle (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,321690,00.html) has resigned amid an investigtion into his pay-to-play schemes. Others currently under investigation include Arizona's Rick Renzi (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,321690,00.html), and Don Young and Ted Stevens (http://community.adn.com/adn/node/112569) of Alaska.

There are others who have escaped my memory at the moment.

Senator Obama has never been accused of anything improper.

Yes, he was just convicted yesterday, but the Rezko story has been being hashed out for many months.

As a counter point, there is an article about changed Obama is about to undertake in the Democratic party as a whole.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Barack Obama is moving to take leadership of the Democratic Party, installing one of hit top field lieutenants at the Democratic National Committee, along with a sweeping new ban on special interest money...

...The campaign also said Thursday that the DNC, following Obama’s own policy, will no longer accept donations from political action committees or their members, or federal lobbyists, although donations that have already been accepted will not be returned.

"We will not take a dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. We're going to change how Washington works," Obama said Thursday. ...(full article at link)
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/05/obama-keeps-dean/#more-7635

Seems like he's hit the nominee floor running. If this is any indication of how he will get to work if elected, it's a good sign.

Yes, he was just convicted yesterday, but the Rezko story has been being hashed out for many months.

As a counter point, there is an article about changed Obama is about to undertake in the Democratic party as a whole.

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Barack Obama is moving to take leadership of the Democratic Party, installing one of hit top field lieutenants at the Democratic National Committee, along with a sweeping new ban on special interest money...

...The campaign also said Thursday that the DNC, following Obama’s own policy, will no longer accept donations from political action committees or their members, or federal lobbyists, although donations that have already been accepted will not be returned.

"We will not take a dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. We're going to change how Washington works," Obama said Thursday. ...(full article at link)
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/05/obama-keeps-dean/#more-7635

Seems like he's hit the nominee floor running. If this is any indication of how he will get to work if elected, it's a good sign.

There is nothing new or special in Obama's campaign promise. Promises are easily made and easily broken. I googled "special interest money" and came up with page after page of broken campaign promises about it.

I think bullying is a bit strong, Dedalus, for all we know, they could have been talking about lunch plans.

Or checking one another's breath......(dude - that garlic chicken was a baaad choice if you expect any action from Mrs L....).:p

In the funny story of the day (at least for a Mom with a half naked 5 year old) .....

Senator Obama has a rally scheduled tonight at the Nissan Pavilion in Prince William County. The Pavilion is about 3 miles from my house on a two lane road and is, unfortunately, in the middle of a HUGE road construction project. Even more unfortunate was yesterday's weather in the area where over 3 inches of rain fell in one hour and numerous tornado's touched down - including one which passed within sight of the Pavilion. The net result - the Nissan Pavilion is on a two lane road, in the middle of a huge road construction project with spotty power outages, flooding and trees down all over the place and a rally with over 25,000 people expected during rush hour.

It just took me over an hour - yes an hour - to get home from the grocery store. What made it funny was my now 5 year old. I didn't realize how bad traffic was and told him we'd hurry home so he could do his business in the privacy and cleanliness of our home bathroom, and then we hit traffic. My son was so, um, upset, that I pulled off the road a let him do his business on the median strip.

Third big unfortunate event of the day - the only open stop was just down from a TV news crew and group of people with signs about global warming.

All I could think was - am I supposed to scoop my son's poop like I do with the dog?:lol:

We now return to fighting amongst ourselves......

:lol: That is funny. A Mom has to do what a mom has to do...and so do little boys :lol:

Wow! The original article was from a leftwing blog site, so there is no reason to suggest any effort to demonize Obama. No mention was made of race: I compared him to B. Clinton's reputed penchant for bullying tactics - no hint of race there, no comparison to any black people. [removed by Jessica]


Perhaps it was lunch plans, but the article made clear that very aggressive body language was used - leaning in close, backing against a wall, etc. Who cares what the conversation is about - Obama was observed using very aggressive and, I think, inappropriate interpersonal tactics.
That's 100% speculation. I'm not sure what else to say about it... reading an article about someone's body language isn't quite enough to support claims about aggression and inappropriate behavior.

I don't mean to be short, but I mean, a blog article? A video clip might convince me... if it had audio...

Wow! The original article was from a leftwing blog site, so there is no reason to suggest any effort to demonize Obama.

I know, I saw it on HuffingtonPost too. I couldn't believe it there either !
It may show up on C-Span. But until I see it I won't believe it.

Re Cabinet Plum Positions, I just wanted to point out how many are available as well as non-Cabinet high administration posts.

Current Cabinet

Secretary of State - Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of the Treasury - Henry Paulson
Secretary of Defense - Robert Gates
Attorney General - Michael Mukasey
Secretary of the Interior - Dirk Kempthorne
Secretary of Agriculture - Edward Schafer
Secretary of Commerce - Carlos Gutierrez
Secretary of Labor - Elaine Chao
Secretary of Health and Human Services - Michael Leavitt
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development - Steve Preston
Secretary of Transportation - Mary Peters
Secretary of Energy - Samuel Bodman
Secretary of Education - Margaret Spellings
Secretary of Veterans Affairs - James Peake
Secretary of Homeland Security - Michael Chertoff


Pending Nominations

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, SBA Administrator - Steve Preston has been nominated

Cabinet-level administration offices
Six positions have cabinet-level rank, which allows these individuals to attend Cabinet meetings without being Secretaries of Executive Departments. They are:


Vice President of the United States - Dick Cheney
White House Chief of Staff - Joshua Bolten
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency - Stephen Johnson
Director of the Office of Management and Budget - Jim Nussle
Director of the National Drug Control Policy - John Walters
United States Trade Representative - Susan Schwab


Level I of the Executive Schedule
Level I of the Executive Schedule is the pay grade for cabinet officials. In addition to the
fifteen (15) cabinet secretaries & six (6) positions are listed in the Level I, of which only three

Director of the OMB,
Director of the National Drug Control Policy, and
the U.S. Trade Representative, have cabinet-level positions.

The remaining three are:

Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System - Ben Bernanke
Commissioner of the Social Security Administration - Michael Astrue
Director of National Intelligence - Mike McConnell


Though the Cabinet is still an important organ of bureaucratic management, in recent years, the Cabinet has generally declined in relevance as a policy making body. Starting with President Franklin Roosevelt, the trend has been for Presidents to act through the Executive Office of the President or the National Security Council rather than through the Cabinet.

This has created a situation in which non-Cabinet officials such as the White House Chief of Staff, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the National Security Advisor are now as powerful as or more powerful than some Cabinet officials.

Traditionally, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General are the most important members of Cabinet, and form an inner circle. In recent years, the Secretary of Homeland Security has risen to a level of significance that is arguably closer to the "big four" than to the other cabinet offices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cabinet


See how Health & Human Services (medicare/medicaid etc) is only #9 ? Not such a plum maybe to a Washington insider such as Hillary.

Let the speculation begin !

Re Cabinet Plum Positions, I just wanted to point out how many are available as well as non-Cabinet high administration posts.


I may be incorrect, but aren't Cabinet level positions all political appointees who serve at the will of the President? That means that all of them will be up for grabs this November, no matter who wins.

Yes. All up for grabs, although if McCain gets it --> will he continue Bush appointees?

Democratic Speculation so far is:

- Secretary of State = Gov. Richardson
- Secretary of Defense = Sen. Webb
- Secretary of HHS = Clinton
- Attorney General = Edwards

Who will be White House Chief of Staff ? Axelrod ? Bonier ?

Also, if Senators take the positions, it could reduce Democratic majority in Senate, or lead to a lot of run-off elections !!!

Great story, Mom. I love it!

Remember the offense taken at Michelle Obama's comment that "for the first time in my adult life, I am proud... ?"

From another prominent black woman (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24961184/):

"The United States of America is an extraordinary country. It is a country that has overcome many, many, now years, decades, actually a couple of centuries, of trying to make good on its principles. And I think what we are seeing is an extraordinary expression of the fact that 'We the People' is beginning to mean to all of us."

Different wording, same sentiment.

I could have made either of those comments myself.

Yes. All up for grabs, although if McCain gets it --> will he continue Bush appointees?

Possible some, but not all. Since the cabinet positions are supposed to be loyal to the current President, most Presidents will choose their own people whom they trust and know they can depend on.

Also, if Senators take the positions, it could reduce Democratic majority in Senate, or lead to a lot of run-off elections !!!

I was wondering that. Unless Webb is the VP, would be Democrats want to risk losing that seat? Before Webb it was red for a long long time....

Great story, Mom. I love it!

Thanks! It was entertaining!

Condi congratulated all three candidates including Hillary, and said she was looking forward to watching this unfold from the sidelines as a voter. Which I thought was interesting. Her comments were good.

I was wondering that. Unless Webb is the VP, would be Democrats want to risk losing that seat? Before Webb it was red for a long long time....

It's an interesting question, since so many Senators in the mix. Another reason to have a Governor as a VP.

Here's what KOS said about the Obama-Lieberman "discussion".


What's interesting is that now that Obama is our nominee, we no longer have the Senate leadership claiming Lieberman's committee assignments in the Democratic caucus are safe.
“Its a difficult situation,” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, the Senate Democrats' Assistant Majority Leader and a major Obama backer, told reporters Wednesday, according to Roll Call. “Joe is my friend ... but I hope he doesn’t become the lead attack dog. Of course it’s a concern when someone in your Caucus is supporting the other party’s candidate. Let’s not try and sugarcoat it."

Lieberman agreed to caucus with the Democrats, who need his vote in the narrowly-divided Senate, in order to maintain power. But the Nutmeg stater is testing the patience of Democratic leaders by endorsing McCain and agreeing to speak at the Republican National Convention in September. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told MSNBC they would "watch very closely" how far Lieberman takes his advocacy.
Of course there's nothing left to "watch very closely". That's just Reid being diplomatic. The damage is done, and getting upbraided in the Senate floor by the future president of the United States should tell anyone exactly where Lieberman stands in Obama's Democratic Party.

I wonder if Lieberman's "ranking" position on committees etc could end in January 2009? He has another 4 years left in his Senate term.

I love seeing Obama clean house like this. It makes me feel all warm & tingly about January 2009.

"'We, the people' is beginning to mean all of us... "

That's such a great statement in just a few words.

I've seen a lot of sniping from the right about this:

http://purplehawk.potterskeys.com/fistbump.jpg

Human Events (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26692&page=1), which refers to itself as "leading the conservative movement," described the moment as:

"Michelle is not as 'refined' as Obama at hiding her TRUE feelings about America—etc. Her 'Hezbollah' style fist-jabbing ..."

Let's try again. That particular gesture is known as the fist pound (also known as a dap greeting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dap_greeting)). On Tuesday ight, we saw perhaps the most high-profile dap of all time, as Michelle and Barack Obama bumped fists on national television. Dap stands for "dignity and pride." It orginated in the black community and became popular in the white mainstream during the 60's. Most boomers would know it well in all its versions. Some have said it was brought to America by West Africans on slave ships. I wouldn't know, not having been around at the time, but the gesture was certainly known to my grandparents as well as my own generation.

This Cal Thomas dude from Human Events doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. I can't guess where he got the idea it was associated with Hezbollah! I wonder how many people read his column and took what he said as fact?

This Cal Thomas dude from Human Events doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. I can't guess where he got the idea it was associated with Hezbollah! I wonder how many people read his column and took what he said as fact?

Until you posted it, I had never even head of Human Events, so I'm going with three - Cal Thomas, his mother, and his significant other. :p

I'd think to view the article as one of those nasty, no facts to back up but trashes the opposition, articles the internet tends to give rise to. This isn't the first nor will it be the last.:no: Unfortunately.

Some of the articles I saw about that had Obama as being "the first hip presidential candidate in years" and other such things :lol:. The whole issue, even if there was one, will be gone in a few days anyways, I think - things move fast!

Until you posted it, I had never even head of Human Events, so I'm going with three - Cal Thomas, his mother, and his significant other. :p

:lol: You're probably right, Mom. And you, too, Chris!

Barack met privately with Hillary tonight (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/obama-and-clinton-meet-in-dc/) following his event in Virginia. He sent everyone else back to Chicago and stayed behind to meet with her in her Washington home. No word on what they discussed at this point.

The official word of his vice presidential short list is to say nothing, no matter what we hear and who said it or asks it. Mother Jones has published a nifty little article called All You Need to Know About Obama's VP Options (http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/06/obama-running-mate-vice-presidential-choices.html), which should help us with a bit of private speculating.

The New York Times has an article on how hectic things were for the supers in the months leading up to this past Tuesday. The Clinton campaign banked on the superdelegates as firewall that would hold for her. Well, we all know that didn't work out too well. The stories these people tell of how Bill Clinton haunted them makes the article worth a read. I cannot imagine dreading to answer my phone in my own house!

For Clinton, a Key Group Didn’t Hold (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/us/politics/05superdelegates.html?ref=politics)

Howard Dean will remain as DNC Chairman (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Dean_will_remain_as_DNC_chair.html). I think that's a smart move on Barack's part.

Just out of curiosity, purple, how do you feel about Strickland?

Just out of curiosity, purple, how do you feel about Strickland?

Still pretty mad at him for supporting Hillary, to be frank. He is very well-liked here in Ohio, though, and I can grudgingly say he's a pretty good man.

Still pretty mad at him for supporting Hillary, to be frank. He is very well-liked here in Ohio, though, and I can grudgingly say he's a pretty good man.
I don't want to go off-topic here, but Strickland has had a number of housekeeping issues here, so maybe his support for Hillary was the result of stress and confusion.

Back on topic though, to be honest, I was shocked at how relatively poorly Obama did in Ohio... things seemed, from my point of view, to be going rather well for him. I remember attending an Obama function at the Alpha Center in Akron (this was quite a while ago, we only found out Ted Kennedy was coming here after we already had plans for that night, alas), and it was a lively gathering--lots of people in and out, food, conversation, and it was sort of amusing how many people there I already knew, despite not having lived in Akron proper for many years. It was exciting in a way I have never before associated with politics.

Anyway, I seem to be rambling. I have my concerns about how he's going to carry this state, because based on conversations I have and overhear frequently, I believe few people with any conservative streak at all are going to give him a chance.

I may be incorrect, but aren't Cabinet level positions all political appointees who serve at the will of the President? .

As are all ambassadorships.

I'm worried about that, too, Canis. He's beating McCain now in Pennsylvania, and the last poll I saw gave him a 9-point lead in Ohio. West Virginia and Kentucky - well, they are what they are.

Jim Clyburn of South Carolina gave an interview to Fox News (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/04/clyburn-clinton-supporters-flood-office-with-hate-calls/) in which he described the hate calls he and his staff were getting in the House after he endorsed Obama. The callers were not shy about identifying themselves as supporters of Hillary Clinton.

Clyburn also had to endure a 45-minute tongue-lashing from Bill Clinton - in which the former president used a racial expletive (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/04/wsj-clinton-used-expletiv_n_105161.html).

On ambassadorships, maybe with Hillary saying she won't push for VP she will get Brussels and Bill the EU if Obama wins.

OT: Watching the news last night and they were talking to an old school friend from Indonesia who called him Barry. I like that. Especially when he and our PM meet: Barry and Kevin, sounds like school kids.

From the Huffington Post:
The meeting followed Clinton's disavowal hours earlier of efforts by some supporters who have urged Obama to choose her as his running mate. The push-back came a day after the former first lady said she would end her quest for the Democratic nomination and endorse the Illinois senator.

"She is not seeking the vice presidency, and no one speaks for her but her," communications director Howard Wolfson said. "The choice here is Senator Obama's and his alone."
I really hope that's true and that she's not just trying to look like she's trying too hard for the position. She did say earlier she'd be willing to take it.

She would just not be good for an Obama administration, regardless of what she did for the ticket. It's not good to have someone that ambitious hanging around, and I don't think Bill has the personality to be able to play second (or actually third) fiddle.

EDIT: Well, Obama got what he wanted (http://www.news24.com/News24/World/US_Elections_2008/0,,2-10-2339_2334905,00.html) from his Israel speech - Hamas doesn't like him any more.

As are all ambassadorships.

I could see Bill as Ambassador to the U.N. ??? Located in NY, lots of travel & glad handing ???

This is a direct denial of the existence of that "video" that no one has seen but everyone has heard of - but is "not a viral email at all !!!!" http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_denies_a_rumor_and_questions_the_question.ht ml

That bit about Obama accosting Lieberman is rather disquieting. It seems like the same sort of physical bullying that B. Clinton was so renowned - or more accurately infamous - for (IMO).

A video clip might convince me... if it had audio...

Here's youtube of the start of the conversation. No audio.

h5DNpJBzxG8

Barack met privately with Hillary tonight (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/obama-and-clinton-meet-in-dc/) following his event in Virginia. He sent everyone else back to Chicago and stayed behind to meet with her in her Washington home. No word on what they discussed at this point.


Apparently the meeting was at Sen. Feinstein's House.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/05/obama-said-to-be-meeting-with-clinton/

Still pretty mad at him for supporting Hillary, to be frank. He is very well-liked here in Ohio, though, and I can grudgingly say he's a pretty good man.

I don't think he was in the chorus that pushed her out in the end (unlike Rendell). He's only a first term governor tho', elected 2006?

Wouldn't you have liked to be a fly on the wall in that corner? I guess when Obama reaches across the aisle...he really does, literally Damn, where are those extendable ears when you really need them?

EDIT: Well, Obama got what he wanted (http://www.news24.com/News24/World/US_Elections_2008/0,,2-10-2339_2334905,00.html) from his Israel speech - Hamas doesn't like him any more.

He's already modified his modified stance.

On Wednesday, Obama told the AIPAC that he would work for peace with a Palestinian state alongside Israel. "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."

But the US doesn't regard Jerusalem as Israel's capital - most foreign embassies, including the US embassy, are in Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem. Prior to the 1967 war Jerusalem was a divided city with Arab (eastern) and non Arab (western) parts. During the 1967 war Arab (eastern) Jerusalem was annexed by Israel and Jerusalem was unified.

On Thursday, after Hamas reacted angrily to Obama's statements at AIPAC, Obama modified his statement.

When asked whether Palestinians would have a future claim to Jerusalem, Obama said, "Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations."

When asked if he opposed dividing Jerusalem, Obama said, "As a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute. And I think that it is smart for us to -- to work through a system in which everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in Old Jerusalem but that Israel has a legitimate claim on that city."

Whether Israel has a legitamite claim to Jerusalem has been the bone of contention for some time and is the primary reason the US Embassy is located in Tel Aviv and not Jerusalem.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0547673120080605

When asked if he opposed dividing Jerusalem, Obama said, "As a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute. And I think that it is smart for us to -- to work through a system in which everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in Old Jerusalem but that Israel has a legitimate claim on that city."

Whether Israel has a legitamite claim to Jerusalem has been the bone of contention for some time and is the primary reason the US Embassy is located in Tel Aviv and not Jerusalem.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0547673120080605

Obama can't have it both ways. Jerusalem cannot be at once the sole property of a nation while at the same time giving "everyone access".

Any word of a definite concession from Hillary yet? Any speech to be given?

A nice little article woke me up: Clinton campaign says she's not seeking No. 2 spot (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-06-04-Hillary_N.htm). It basically says that Hillary and her campaign team aren't pressuring Obama to make Hillary VP, but are rather letting him decide.

"The vice president is the most important decision that I will make before I am president," Obama said. "I am a big believer in making decisions well, not making them fast and responding to pressure."

I don't think we can expect a decision from Obama anytime soon.

Note: according to the same article, purple, Strickland has announced his "wholehearted and enthusiastic support" for Obama. :)

I don't know much about Strickland, but the big fuss seems to be that Obama would secure Ohio, an incredibly important swing state, with him on the ticket.

Today's RCP polls put Obama up 1 point in Missouri, and McCain up (only?!) 8 points in West Virginia.

I don't think we can expect a decision from Obama anytime soon.


He's had more than a year to consider. How long does he need?

At this rate he'll give his inaugural in Spetember 2012.

He's had more than a year to consider. How long does he need?

At this rate he'll give his inaugural in September 2012.
He doesn't have to decide until the convention - waiting until then will bring the Clinton pressure off the boil

Great story, Mom. I love it!

Remember the offense taken at Michelle Obama's comment that "for the first time in my adult life, I am proud... ?"

From another prominent black woman (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24961184/):

"The United States of America is an extraordinary country. It is a country that has overcome many, many, now years, decades, actually a couple of centuries, of trying to make good on its principles. And I think what we are seeing is an extraordinary expression of the fact that 'We the People' is beginning to mean to all of us."

Different wording, same sentiment.
I could have made either of those comments myself.

That is the extraordinary thing about the U.S. It was originally founded on principles, unlike almost any other nation on earth. We have sometimes failed to live up to those principles or we have misjudged their application. We have even fought wars with not just other countries but each other over those principles.

Now, as for Micelle Obama's quote, it falls into the same category as Senator Obama's quote about some Americans "clinging" to their religion and their guns. If she really meant it the way she said it (that is what I have to assume) then Mrs. Obama is only proud of her country now, but not before her husband was nominated.

Mrs. Rice seems to say she is proud of being an American, not just because she has been raised to a postion of authority, but because the U.S. is a country that struggles to live up to it's principles, something that it has tried to do long before Senator Obama was around. So I think the thing that rankles me and some others about Michelle Obama's statement is that her pride seems to only be kindled when things are going her way.


I'll be proud of the U.S. no matter who wins the election. The very fact we are having elections is someting to be proud of. I'm proud that Obama is having the real chance to hold the highest office in the world. I'm also proud that a war veteran that has suffered prison and torture for serving his country is also able to do so.

Obama can't have it both ways. Jerusalem cannot be at once the sole property of a nation while at the same time giving "everyone access".

Um... Washington D.C. is the sole property of the United States of America, yet "everyone" has access to the city and the government institutions that exist within it. I don't think his statement is a big deal.

McCain appears to have done a complete reversal on FISA over the past six months. Last December, he responded to a questionaire (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/McCainQA/) on executive power, spying and torture that was distributed to all candidates by The Boston Globe's Charlie Savage. He refused to answer whether he thought Bush has claimed executive powers that are unconstitutional, but on the issue of whether he thinks the President possesses "inherent powers" under Article II "to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes, McCain said:

There are some areas where the statutes don't apply, such as in the surveillance of overseas communications. Where they do apply, however, I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is.

Savage followed that up with a related question and McCain was just as clear:

Globe: Okay, so is that a no, in other words, federal statute trumps inherent power in that case, warrantless surveillance?

McCain: I don't think the president has the right to disobey any law.

Yesterday, however, McCain gave the exact opposite stance. Under pressure from the National Review and other right-wing executive power supporters, McCain's campaign released this statement:

Senator McCain supports the FISA modernization bill passed by the Senate without qualification. He believes no additional steps should be necessary to secure immunity for the telecoms; both the 109th and 110th Congresses have conducted extensive evaluation and examination of this topic and have satisfied the public's need for appropriate oversight; hearings purportedly designed to "get to the bottom of things" have already occurred; and neither the Administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the ACLU and the trial lawyers, understand were Constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001.

McCain, spying and executive power: A complete reversal in 6 months (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/03/mccain/index.html)

McCain: I'd Spy on Americans Secretly, Too (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/mccain-id-spy-o.html)

The two articles above are very well-sourced and include links every step of the way.

I've often said Iraq is my non-negotiable in this election, but the power grab by the Bush administration - at the expense of the legislative and judicial branches of our system of government - is a close second.

Um... Washington D.C. is the sole property of the United States of America, yet "everyone" has access to the city and the government institutions that exist within it.

No they don't. Foreigners have to have visas (and that can be a time consuming and expensive process even for citizens of "friends" of America) and even the most upright American cannot just freely access the government institutions.

I don't think his statement is a big deal.

How is a repudiation of almost 60 years of US is "no big deal". In fact the only presidents to explicitly endorse an "undivided Jerusalem" are Carter, Reagan and the Bushes. So if Obama wants to join this illustrious group, so be it.

The US position before Carter was pretty much as Truman iterated in 1948: "We continue to support, within the framework of the United Nations, the internationalization of Jerusalem and the protection of the holy places in Palestine. . . ."

FMEP (http://www.fmep.org/reports/special_reports/no01-february1994/05-us_policy.html)

Although none of the others calling for an undivided Jerusalem explicitly said that it should be under Israeli control.

The US position before Carter was pretty much as Truman iterated in 1948: "We continue to support, within the framework of the United Nations, the internationalization of Jerusalem and the protection of the holy places in Palestine. . . ."


Bare in mind that statement was made before Palestine ceased to be a state. They lost their rights when it was decided to attack Israel, and lost the war along with the remainder of Palestine. Spoils of War. At that point Jerusalem also ceased to be open to the public. With good reason, too, if the "public" would prefer to fight over it.

Now, as for Micelle Obama's quote, it falls into the same category as Senator Obama's quote about some Americans "clinging" to their religion and their guns. If she really meant it the way she said it (that is what I have to assume) then Mrs. Obama is only proud of her country now, but not before her husband was nominated.

Mrs. Rice seems to say she is proud of being an American, not just because she has been raised to a postion of authority, but because the U.S. is a country that struggles to live up to it's principles, something that it has tried to do long before Senator Obama was around. So I think the thing that rankles me and some others about Michelle Obama's statement is that her pride seems to only be kindled when things are going her way.

Rice seems to be conveying the same underlying message as Michelle Obama in my reading of her statement. It was Rice, after all, who coined the phrase "America's birth defect." The last line of her statement - "'We, the people' is beginning to mean to all of us" - is an implicit recognition of the exact problem Michelle was alluding to. There is a sea change in the air and it's something we all can be proud of.

Rice seems to be conveying the same underlying message as Michelle Obama in my reading of her statement. It was Rice, after all, who coined the phrase "America's birth defect." The last line of her statement - "'We, the people' is beginning to mean to all of us" - is an implicit recognition of the exact problem Michelle was alluding to. There is a sea change in the air and it's something we all can be proud of.

No chance it was just a faux pas? Once the faux pas was exploited by the rivals, she had two choices: toe-tap, or embrace it.

Which "she" are you referring to?

Bare in mind that statement was made before Palestine ceased to be a state. They lost their rights when it was decided to attack Israel

Well try this, from the same site.

". . . .Clearly, then, substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under the [Geneva] Convention...Indeed, the presence of these settlements is seen by my Government as an obstacle to the success of the negotiations for a just and final peace between Israel and its neighbors. . . ."

U.S. Permanent Representative to the U.N. William Scranton, before United Nations Security Council, March 23, 1976

And no one loses "their rights" for whatever reason, particularly civilians (or don't you believe in all men having inalienable rights?)

I'd like the US to practice something like loyality to our friends. If nations that stand behind us are thrown overboard everytime the admistration changes why would anyone support us? I would say loyality is one of McCain's best qualities. He's willing to work with others on his ideas to get things accomplished but has a lifetime record of standing by his friends even in the face of pain and torture.

Rice seems to be conveying the same underlying message as Michelle Obama in my reading of her statement. It was Rice, after all, who coined the phrase "America's birth defect." The last line of her statement - "'We, the people' is beginning to mean to all of us" - is an implicit recognition of the exact problem Michelle was alluding to. There is a sea change in the air and it's something we all can be proud of.

Rice may have been saying something along the same lines but managed to do it without being insulting and elitest. I've been rather embarrased by this election but there is plenty of other stuff to be proud of. The space station has a working toilet!:lol:

There appears to be two lines of conversation in here right now - let's stick to the one that's on-topic (aka - not the history line). Thanks :)

Well try this, from the same site.

". . . .Clearly, then, substantial resettlement of the Israeli civilian population in occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, is illegal under the [Geneva] Convention...Indeed, the presence of these settlements is seen by my Government as an obstacle to the success of the negotiations for a just and final peace between Israel and its neighbors. . . ."

U.S. Permanent Representative to the U.N. William Scranton, before United Nations Security Council, March 23, 1976

And no one loses "their rights" for whatever reason, particularly civilians (or don't you believe in all men having inalienable rights?)


I am only going to answer your final point, as we have been directed back to a single talk topic.

Yes, I do believe in inablienable rights, but you must know that those inalienable rights are not inclusive of every right a person can attain. If you are referring to our Declaration of Independence, the quote was "certain inablienable rights". The "certain" is the key. In this case, the right to walk into anyone's city without challenge is not an inalienable right.

Which "she" are you referring to?

Michelle Obama's statement. I believe it was a faux pas, and Barack's opposition pounced on it. How she chose to qualify the statement is another matter.

Mea culpa.

I'll leave it at Obama saying that an undivided Jerusalem should be capital of Israel is a seismic departure from past policy and practice and is far from being no "big deal".

The "certain" is the key. In this case, the right to walk into anyone's city without challenge is not an inalienable right.

Which is what I said in the first place.

Obama can't have it both ways. Jerusalem cannot be at once the sole property of a nation while at the same time giving "everyone access".

There appears to be two lines of conversation in here right now - let's stick to the one that's on-topic (aka - not the history line). Thanks :)

I'm kind of confused as to which line is the history line and off topic - the one with Mrs Obama's "proud" statement which was made a while ago or the one about Senator Obama's modified modification of his thoughts on a divided or unified Jerusalem (a concept which underlies some of the tension and violence in Israel)?

Obama can't have it both ways. Jerusalem cannot be at once the sole property of a nation while at the same time giving "everyone access".

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Well I guess that answers the whole Wab = he / she debate.........

There was a debate?

There was a debate?

Only with me, myself, and I. Everytime I referenced a post by you I struggled whether it would be appropriate to refer to you as he or she so I would write he / she because I didn't want to offend - yes, I am totally pathetic. :p

I'm kind of confused as to which line is the history line and off topic - the one with Mrs Obama's "proud" statement which was made a while ago or the one about Senator Obama's modified modification of his thoughts on a divided or unified Jerusalem (a concept which underlies some of the tension and violence in Israel)?

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Well I guess that answers the whole Wab = he / she debate.........

I think chparadise was referring to the discussion of the history of Jerusalem, which was somewhat-related to Obama, but was getting too far away from the main topic.

I'm having trouble figuring out what today's topic is, too. :lol:

Let's see...

Michelle Obama's "proud" statement and Condoleezza Rice's words of affirmation, which she has given twice.


Obama, Israel, and Palestine.


McCain's flip-flop on FISA - which nobody has picked up on.

I think chparadise was referring to the discussion of the history of Jerusalem, which was somewhat-related to Obama, but was getting too far away from the main topic.

Thanks, Sherlock. That was helpful.

Okay, let's try to have an official discussion for the day and we'll see how it works.

Since it seems to be the most popular, let's go with Isreal.

Today's discussion questions.

1. What do you personally think should be done in Israel? How closely does this match the view of both candidates?
2. What is your opinion on the Palestinian state? How closely does this match the view of both candidates?
3. How important is this issue to you personally. How strongly will the candidates opinion on this topic influenece your vote.

I don't want to discuss Israel ! This is about the election.

That area of the world is fundamentally unstable. If we focus on that area to reach a decision the U.S. will be destabilized.

Rahm Emmanuel is a good friend of Obama, and the Democratic Party knows what their position is.

Oil has gone up $11 a barrel today on rumors $137 barrel that the U.S. will strike Iran over the weekend (see Iraq War thread), while Obama is hosting a sleepover for eight (8) seven year olds.

Further, all that filibustering reading the global warming bill was a complete distraction, and, to me, prevented pre-emptive legislation. I'm not sure what checks or balances exist to stop a Bush Administration strike.

Sorry --> it is a rumor of an Israeli strike on Iran
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL0625195820080606
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0632416820080606

Is that what the AIPAC speeches were about ? Pledging to keep Israel's back if Israel "goes" ?

I don't want to discuss Israel ! This is about the election.

Nevertheless, that's what an Admin has asked that we do in this thread. Failure to comply will result in banishment from the DoIMC.

1. What do you personally think should be done in Israel? How closely does this match the view of both candidates?

I think Israel is way overstated in terms of importance in this campaign. My opinion is not supported by my candidate.

2. What is your opinion on the Palestinian state? How closely does this match the view of both candidates?

I think there should be a Palestinian state, but I also think that granting them one is not going to do much to solve the problems in the Middle East.

3. How important is this issue to you personally. How strongly will the candidates opinion on this topic influenece your vote

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 400 points today, driven by economic concerns and by oil prices that soared to near $140 a barrel. Insofar as our backing of Israel has anything to do with what's happening on the domestic front (the economy) and internationally with Israel's Muslim neighbors, I care a lot... but not enough to make this the topic of the day. I really think Israel ought to have a thread of its own.

I'm certainly opinionated on this issue, so after this topic expires, can I request a separate thread on the Mideast conflict?

1. What do you personally think should be done in Israel? How closely does this match the view of both candidates?


The US shouldn't really be involved. Every time the international community tries to intervene in the process, it is mainly overwhelmingly one-sided, places the blame on Israel for almost all the violence, and undermines their efforts to defend themselves. The US should refuse to recognize Hamas as the head of the Palestinian Authority, and if it does attempt to broker any negotiations, insist on doing so through the Palestinian Authority, with conditions imparted that groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and al Aqsa become disbanded, and that they make concerted efforts to halt efforts to undermine the violence.

2. What is your opinion on the Palestinian state? How closely does this match the view of both candidates?


I am against the creation of a Palestinian state if it means the creation of another Islamic theocracy that will end up as a hotbed of anti-Israel and anti-US sentiment and a terrorist haven. Creating a Palestinian state out of the disputed territories would be nearly impossible anyway, since they are on opposite ends of the country. Even if Israel and a moderate Palestinian faction could broker a two-state solution (which the Israeli government does support-do you really think they want to hold onto this land they can barely control?), Islamic fundamentalists would never allow that to happen, as they believe that God entitled them to the whole of the land. A Palestinian state comprising the West Bank and Gaza will not be enough for them. They will want Tel Aviv, Haifa, and everything else. I would support it if it were feasible, but at this point, it doesn't look like it is.

3. How important is this issue to you personally. How strongly will the candidates opinion on this topic influenece your vote.

As I am Jewish, I am an unabashed, unapologetic supporter of Israel. As such, this topic is very important to me. I have had concerns about Obama's commitment to Israel, due to some of his advisers' connection with the Carter administration. However, I also believe Israel has gained the ability to take care of itself, and can and will use that power whenever it is threatened.

Israel is fine as a topic as they are very prominently placed in our Foreign policy, prominently placed in the area where we are at conflict, and possibly involved in future conflicts, should rumors become fact at some point.

How do I feel? You know, I'm not sure, to be honest. I'm a bit lacking on my Israel facts and am mostly listening to others on detailed points.

In general, however, I've not always been thrilled with some of Israel's decisions concerning its neighbors..but conceded it is a very complicated set of issues they are dealing with.

Israel is a strong ally, and we could use one of those (especially in that region). We must be cautious, however, as they seem (to me) be be a bit rash in their decisions.

As far as the way the candidates stand on Israel...hmm...McCain is pretty much as I expected. Obama came out much stronger than I expected (especially about not dividing Jerusalem)--and, I need to think about that a lot more and try to understand where he's going. He's also said in the past that being a friend also sometimes means holding up a mirror for someone (paraphrased). I agree with that, which is why it was a bit surprising when he spoke the other day at the American/Israel lobby. I'm honestly not sure if it is a good surprise or a not good one at this point. I need to think about it.

I'm not against Israel, and certainly not anti-Jewish. One of my grandfather's was Hebrew/Jewish and I have a lot of respect for the people and the religion. But, even my grandfather was not always happy with what the Government of Israel did on the international stage.

Anyway, please continue to discuss this one. I may not weigh in as much on it, but am listening to all the points as I'm trying to understand and decide if I have an opinion :p

All right take 2:

Which candidate do you think has the best plan to fix the economy in general? Obama (surprise!)
What do you like about the plans Obama and McCain have presented? What do you dislike? Health care, I like his tax balance better, I like the idea of getting out of the Iraq conflict (if we can by the time the Bush Admin. is out of there) and putting that money toward our infrastructure. I like his plans to encourage green energy companies, moving away from petroleum powered economy (although, I understand that's a very long term project and will take much time), and encouraging "fair" trade internationally. I also like not giving credits to companies who move jobs out of our countries. There's more, but that will do for now.

How big of an issue is the price of gas to you personally? HUGE! It's killing our pocket books here. No vacations this summer (other than the neighborhood parks), my biggest hobby is in the dumper as it requires travel, and now we get notices that our local district is CUTTING public school buses for the kids. I live 10 mi from town in a rural community. While we'll probably be able to get the kids there ourselves (it's going to hurt, though--lots of beans this year), I know there are families in our community that can barely afford gas to get them to work, let alone the kids to school now, too.

My husband is doing a partnership job with a man he works his day job with. This man's wife also works, they have two kids. Hubby had to loan him money to get home as he only had enough to get to work.

Honestly, people think I'm joking, but I'm thinking of getting a horse and cart.

What would you like to see done? In the short term? Group scream. I'll start. <screaaaaaaaaam> Long term? We HAVE to invest in alternative energies. We need to do with energy what Kennedy did with the moon race...make it a matter of national pride. (short answer)
How do you feel about the proposals McCain and Obama have made to fix this?

Surprisingly enough, both candidates this year are in favor of championing more alternative energy. Again, I think I have to go with Obama on this side as he seems to have a more detailed vision of how this can link into our economics and manufacturing industries. Other than McCain's Oregon speeches, you don't get the feeling it's a priority, just a bit of a side note.

BTW, my husband works at the (currently) largest windmill electrical-generation farm in the country right now. He's in the manufacturing side of it, and business is increasing. The wind-generation facility is also increasing it's area and plans for transmission lines to send all the surplus electricity to the L.A. basin is in the works. So, there is a very personal interest in seeing this industry grow further...besides believing in the green and economic benefits, it helps feed our family and many others in this town.

1. What do you personally think should be done in Israel? How closely does this match the view of both candidates?
Neither of the candidates supports my view of Israel. I don't so much have a specific situation that I would like to happen- I can't say I know exactly what the best solution is for everyone involved. Obviously I would like to see peace between Israel and the other countries in the Middle East. I think of Israel as being much stronger than many people seem to - they might be in a hostile area, but I don't think they actually need to worry about being taken completely off the map. Regardless of what either of them said in front of AIPAC, my personal feeling is that John McCain would take a much stronger line on supporting Israel regardless of their actions.

2. What is your opinion on the Palestinian state? How closely does this match the view of both candidates?
I can understand the Palestinians wanting a state. Do I think it is a particularly good idea to be creating nation-states in the Middle East? Not really. But giving them the possibility of having a place where they feel respected and have the ability to make good lives for themselves and their families would go a long way.

3. How important is this issue to you personally. How strongly will the candidates opinion on this topic influence your vote.
This issue isn't very important to me. It bothers me that in order to have a chance at being elected to the presidency, people must be unabashedly supportive of Israel and their policies. I don't think it is wise as a country to unquestionably support another. I don't really expect politicians to be supportive of my view...there are lots of views I don't expect politicians to espouse even if I like them and am supportive of their candidacy.

Well, where is everyone who wants to discuss Israel in relation to the McCain and Obama campaigns?

Heads-up for noon tomorrow. That's when Clinton will suspend her campaign and endorse Obama, or so we've been told. She bid farewell to her staff (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/clintons-bids-farewell-to-staff/) during a private celebration at her Washington home today.

Daniel Larison of The American Conservative thinks that, head-to-head, Obama is the more substantive candidate (http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/06/05/style-over-substance/), while McCain "is the one offering mostly pious bromides about victory, service and being American." Larison thinks this is a good thing because "McCain’s entire campaign has been even more driven by biography and character than Obama’s." I got a real hoot out of that one.

'Night, everyone!

It basically says that Hillary and her campaign team aren't pressuring Obama to make Hillary VP, but are rather letting him decide.
That's because it's tasteless to try to try to muscle your way onto the ticket. In fact, I can't remember any VP who has ever done so. I can't imagine any presidential candidate who would respond positively to that kind of pressure.


Now for a whiplash-inducing shift in topic. Here are my answers to the questions:

1. What do you personally think should be done in Israel? How closely does this match the view of both candidates?

I can't tell what their positions are based on a single speech to AIPAC since what they would say to the group is somewhat predictable. Nor can I rely on canned position statements on their campaign websites, since those are just as predictable.

However, I can give a realistic viewpoint from a political junkie, who is also Jewish. I feel certain that US policy toward Israel will not change regardless who is elected. What may change is our attitude toward the remainder of the Middle East (and the larger Muslim world) and vice versa if Obama is elected.

We need Israel since it is the only democracy and only solidly American ally in the region. But we can't continue to treat all Muslims as if they are our enemies since that will only generate more terrorism, not reduce it. That is not the same as opposing/fighting true terrorism, Muslim or otherwise.

I also think that the current treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis (walling them in, cutting off supplies) is appalling and reminds me of treatment of the Jews by the Nazis in the Warsaw ghetto.

2. What is your opinion on the Palestinian state? How closely does this match the view of both candidates?

There needs to be an independent Palestinian state. There is no other realistic or humane solution. However, the Israelis will never agree to give up Jerusalem. And based on what I've seen discussed among my Jewish friends, even those who feel like I do about the current reprehensible treatment of the Palestinians, American Jews wouldn't support it either.

3. How important is this issue to you personally. How strongly will the candidates opinion on this topic influence your vote.

It's not important to me at all since I don't think that much will change due political realities/expediencies. However, our stance toward the Muslim world in general is crucially important. And a willingness to deal fairly with them will do more to reduce terrorism than generating additional resentment by treating them automatically like enemies.

We can maintain Israel as a strong ally, while also engaging with Muslim nations.



The US should refuse to recognize Hamas as the head of the Palestinian Authority, and if it does attempt to broker any negotiations, insist on doing so through the Palestinian Authority, with conditions imparted that groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and al Aqsa become disbanded, and that they make concerted efforts to halt efforts to undermine the violence.
But is that a realistic approach since no one can make them choose alternative leadership? We have to work with the hand that is dealt to us.I am against the creation of a Palestinian state if it means the creation of another Islamic theocracy that will end up as a hotbed of anti-Israel and anti-US sentiment and a terrorist haven. Creating a Palestinian state out of the disputed territories would be nearly impossible anyway, since they are on opposite ends of the country. Even if Israel and a moderate Palestinian faction could broker a two-state solution (which the Israeli government does support-do you really think they want to hold onto this land they can barely control?), Islamic fundamentalists would never allow that to happen, as they believe that God entitled them to the whole of the land. A Palestinian state comprising the West Bank and Gaza will not be enough for them. They will want Tel Aviv, Haifa, and everything else. I would support it if it were feasible, but at this point, it doesn't look like it is.But what else can be done? I'd think that continuing to treat them as subhuman would yield more terrorists and anti-US sentiment than allowing them self-determination. There are numerous nations out there with dictators that we just have to deal with one way or another.

Since the big news of the day is Hillary's bow out let's spend today on that.

1. How do you feel about Hillary's official concession? Do you think she was right to wait as long as she did?

2. Do you think she would make a good Vice President? A good member of cabinet?

3. How do you think Obama's decision to select or not select her will help or hurt his campaign.

4. How do you think Obama's decision to select or not select her will help or hurt McCain's campaign.

Clinton expected to look to Obama for help on debt

By BETH FOUHY – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — In politics, money talks. And money is likely to be an important factor in discussions between Barack Obama's advisers and the debt-saddled Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign.

Clinton will likely seek help from Obama in retiring her massive campaign debt, which has swollen to more than $30 million, including $11 million she lent the effort, advisers said Thursday.

The former first lady, who plans to bow out of the race and endorse Obama on Saturday, told donors she will raise money for Obama's campaign, both to help the Democratic Party's cash position and to expand the Illinois senator's prodigious fundraising base. Her advisers estimate the former first lady could bring in $50 million to $100 million for the general election campaign — and much more if she were named Obama's running mate.

The advisers spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

She's at over $30 million now! If I were Sen. Obama, I would say --> I will help you with $$$ if you call off your quest to be VP.

$$$ or VP = decide.

But there are signs that Obama begins the general election battle for Latinos with significant advantages.

A new Gallup Poll summary of surveys taken in May shows Obama winning 62% of Latino registered voters nationwide, compared with just 29% for McCain. Others have found a wide gap as well. The pro-Democratic group Democracy Corps compiled surveys from March through May that showed Obama with a 19-point lead among Latinos. And a Times poll published last month showed Obama leading McCain among California Latinos by 14 points.

Republicans say McCain's numbers among Latinos at the moment are disappointing -- far below the goals set by a campaign that has long believed McCain could challenge the traditional Democratic dominance of the Latino electorate.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-latinos6-2008jun06,0,176151.story

Obama moving up with Hispanics.

The link below profiles the lady who got the "guns & bitter" comment from Obama & the "sleaze bag scumbag" comment from Bill. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-fowler7-2008jun07,0,7012425.story

NYT is posting democratic & republican primary maps. There's a lot of overlap of where Obama & Mitt Romney did well (West, young, attractive, competent, non-Washington insiders). Frankly, I think McCain should put Romney on the ticket. If he goes a different way, I can see Romnites going to Obama.

Democratic Primary Map NYT: http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/demmap/
Republican Primary Map NYT: http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/gopmap/index.html

Huckabee seems to be deep south favorite (& some Appalachia).

Sorry, I'm a bit behind on all this so I'm still to answer the first questions.

1. Have you decided who you will (would) vote for?
I'm not American but I'd be voting for Obama (on the condition that Hillary was not his VP). McCain scares me a bit. On the one hand he is pro-life, pro-death penalty, opposes Kyoto Protocol, opposes minimum wage increase, supports nuclear power and opposes same-sex marriage
which I all passionately disagree with, but then supports stem cell research, opposes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, believes global warming is a problem (but wants to counter it by way of nuclear energy) and wants to close Gunatanamo all of which I'm more or less in favour of.
Obama is by no means a perfect candidate for me, but I'd much rather him over Hillary or McCain any day.

2. Which issues are the most important to you? Health care? Iraq? The economy? Which candidate do you think is stronger on the issues that matter to you?
Even though I do not live in America, I'd say Iraq and health care. Iraq directly affects other countries including my own (Australia) so I'd like all non-Iraqi personal out as soon as possible. As for health care, every person in every country deserves high quality health care and from what I gather, this is not currently happening in the US.

3. Who do you think would be the best VP pick for each candidate?
I honestly have no idea. No Hillary though, thanks Obama.

4. How do you feel about the campaigns Obama and McCain have run so far? What do you think they will need to do to secure the Presidency?
As with any bid for leadership, say what the people want to hear even if you have no intention of doing it or you don't believe in it. It sounds cynical and harsh but that's how the past two Australian governments have got into power and I'm almost certain that's how Bush got in.

What happens with American politics affects Australian (and other country's) politics whether we in Australia like it or not. I'm hoping that now we have a new government, and the US is about to get a new government however, this will no longer be the case.

CNN has live stream (http://www.cnn.com/video/live/live.html?stream=stream1) of the Clinton event.

1. How do you feel about Hillary's official concession? Do you think she was right to wait as long as she did?

It is her campaign, she can run it the way she wishes. The money is from donations paid into it by private people and groups, and they are the ones she has to answer to for how it is spent. Personally, I would have made my concession when it was clear that I was mathematically out.

2. Do you think she would make a good Vice President? A good member of cabinet?

Perhaps a good VP, but, strange as it may sound, not a good Cabinet Member. Cabinet Members have far more hands-on responsibility for their departments than the VP. Mostly, the VP is the President of the Senate, with less administrative duties. The VP is closer to an Ambassador or other diplomat than an administrator. She has not proven herself a good business person yet. A business person, with a business mindset is what it takes to be a good Cabinet Member.

3. How do you think Obama's decision to select or not select her will help or hurt his campaign.

I think it might scare fence-sitters over to the Republican ticket if he chooses Hillary. He should go with someone more moderate to court the Independent and Undecided groups.

4. How do you think Obama's decision to select or not select her will help or hurt McCain's campaign.

See above.

Interestingly enough, my adult neice is visiting this weekend for her brother's graduation (my nephew who we've been raising). We've been talking a bit, and she is a steadfast Clinton supporter.

We will be watching her speech together...we are practicing healing in our livingroom :lol:. She's not very happy about her candidate losing the primary, and she's got some complaints against Obama...but agrees that these complaints pale compared to the possibility of McCain becoming president. She will (grudgingly ) vote for Obama, she says. She's agreed to give him a chance...she would very much like to see Clinton picked as his VP, but we've also discussed the possibility of her becoming a health secretary.

I'm not sure I agree with either of those :rolleyes: but, we both agree both camps need to pull together because the alternative is that important.

What happens with American politics affects Australian (and other country's) politics whether we in Australia like it or not. I'm hoping that now we have a new government, and the US is about to get a new government however, this will no longer be the case.

Ah, well, whoever you vote for you end up with a politician.

And no matter how enthusiastic the proponents, change in politics is usually glacial and incremental at best.

And, under the US system of government, change is only dictated by how much it affects the politicians directly. I suppose it has always been that way in any republic.

And no matter how enthusiastic the proponents, change in politics is usually glacial and incremental at best.

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The times there is a ton of change, it accompanies and/or causes violence. The biggest amount of change the US government went through was the Civil War.

It's far from a bad thing. Politicians realise this. The problem lies with the followers who believe that massive change can be effected in a short period of time with little civil disruption.

Change is also not only going forward, it can go backward like the last 7-8 years. At the same time, if change goes too slow, it takes alot of change down the road to set the society where it's supposed to be.

How about a word about the candidates? Remember them?

They're listed as the topics of this thread.

Who? Oh, those guys?

Well as both have embraced change I'd like to know, not what has to change but how they intend to change things and, importantly, when.

Equally pressing is how they intend to convince Congress which is full of people who got where they are under the current system.

Yeah, that's Obama's buggaboo. Not many specifics. In some ways, that can be a virtue, since a detailed plan this early can be torn down and it then becomes hard to implement.

I think the electorate is going to deliver a stinging repudiation of the current system in November. If Republicans thought '06 was bad, just wait until the fifth of November this year. If Clinton can successfully bring her constiuency on board, I expect a blow-out (http://www.alternet.org/story/87225/) in which Obama gets more than 300 electoral votes. Some pundits have predicted 350, although I don't really see that.

Tom DeLay - remember him? - is trying to resurrect himself as a conservative pundit and had this to say on Mark Gallagher: DeLay on Obama: "Unless He Proves Me Wrong, He's a Marxist" (http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/05/delay-obama-marxist/).

Hillary Clinton was really on today. She has truly developed as a public speaker over the last sixteen months and today she brought everything she has to bear in an excellent delivery of what I think was an excellent speech. I liked it when she spoke of "18,000,000 cracks" in that "hardest, highest glass ceiling." I also liked her saying: "Yes, we can."

I'll post the video and transcript as soon as I can locate them.

I just watched Hillary Clinton's speech endorsing Obama. It took her long enough, but she finally did it. Hopefully that will rally her supporters behind him. Do you think they may change their minds if he doesn't put her on the ticket? Interestingly, one French news outlet ran a poll on that (should Obama make Hillary his running mate). There was about 44% in favour, 44% against, the rest "No opinion".

The French are following this election very closely, for some reason.

The French are following this election very closely, for some reason.I believe whole Europe does, there are special reports on the US election on European TV channels almost daily now. It is, after all, an election not important for the US only. But I guess now that Obama is set, we'll get less media for a while, although daily information (just not in the quantity we had over the last couple of weeks) likely won't stop up to November.

I guess it wasn't easy for Hillary Clinton to step back from what she fought for for a very long time and with lots of energy. At the end, she did the right think for her party I think.

The French are following this election very closely, for some reason.

So is the rest of the world. America cannot afford another disaster like the one we've been stuck in for the past 7+ years.

Here's a link to the transcript of Clinton's speech (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/us/politics/07text-clinton.html?_r=1&oref=slogin).

ETA:

I believe whole Europe does, there are special reports on the US election on European TV channels almost daily now. It is, after all, an election not important for the US only. But I guess now that Obama is set, we'll get less media for a while, although daily information (just not in the quantity we had over the last couple of weeks) likely won't stop up to November.

This election will have a massive impact on America's ability to be a good global neighbor.

ETA 2:

McCain has launched a new blog: The McCain Report (http://www.johnmccain.com/mccainreport/) and, in a ploy to counter Obama's dominance of the web, has linked Daily Kos and a few other liberal bloggers.

I saw maybe one minute of it on my local TV news. I got the impression that she gave a quite strong signal to the Dems to unite and forget.

As gertiekeddle said, we sure have very good reasons to be interested in the outcome of this election. :)

:sigh:

I do not think Obama should pick Hilary as his running mate. Hilary doesn't want to be VP even if she ends up accepting Obama's proposal if he asked. I'm not sure if it'll help or hurt his campaign, I just don't think it's good politically. Of course I'm very anti-Clinton so that may be why I feel this way.

I do think Clinton staying in the race so long hurts not only her, but her party. When she saw she couldn't win she shouldn't have acted like a sore loser and whined about Michigan and Florida coming up with silly things like not wanting Obama to get credit for his caucaus wins. She should have bowed out then and allowed the Democratic Party to rally out their candidate.

Mike Huckabee, on the Republican side, stayed in the race when he knew he couldn't win so he could get his name out there, but Clinton doesn't need that (he also bowed out a heck of a lot sooner than Clinton did). We all know who she is. We knew who she was before she started running for president. She had the attention already. She didn't need to be in the race after she lost.

I don't want McCain to pick Romney as his running mate, but I don't think it'll hurt him if he does. I'm not sure if it'll help, but I don't think it'll hurt.

I entered this race because I have an old-fashioned conviction that public service is about helping people solve their problems and live their dreams. I’ve had every opportunity and blessing in my own life, and I want the same for all Americans.

And until that day comes, you’ll always find me on the front lines of democracy, fighting for the future.

The way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand, is to take our energy, our passion, our strength, and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama the next president of the United States.

Today, as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate him on the victory he has won and the extraordinary race he has run. I endorse him and throw my full support behind him.

And I ask all of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me.

I have served in the Senate with him for four years. I have been in this campaign with him for 16 months. I have stood on the stage and gone toe-to-toe with him in 22 debates. I’ve had a front-row seat to his candidacy, and I have seen his strength and determination, his grace and his grit.

In his own life, Barack Obama has lived the American dream, as a community organizer, in the state Senate, as a United States senator. He has dedicated himself to ensuring the dream is realized. And in this campaign, he has inspired so many to become involved in the democratic process and invested in our common future.

Now, when I started this race, I intended to win back the White House and make sure we have a president who puts our country back on the path to peace, prosperity and progress. And that’s exactly what we’re going to do, by ensuring that Barack Obama walks through the doors of the Oval Office on Jan. 20, 2009.

I wish she had smiled more. She smiled when she referred favorable to her husband's Presidency & Legacy.

Now, I understand — I understand that we all know this has been a tough fight, but the Democratic Party is a family. And now it’s time to restore the ties that bind us together and to come together around the ideals we share, the values we cherish and the country we love.

We may have started on separate journeys, but today our paths have merged. And we’re all heading toward the same destination, united and more ready than ever to win in November and to turn our country around, because so much is at stake.

Fox news has a link to whole thing too.

I saw maybe one minute of it on my local TV news. I got the impression that she gave a quite strong signal to the Dems to unite and forget.

As gertiekeddle said, we sure have very good reasons to be interested in the outcome of this election. :)

You'all sure do! I posted the transcript just above, Alastor, and here are the videos of the speech.


mxWrl9W9pf4

em8dWlgxsiY

b594Ia2jXYg

Oc1fTJizJ-M


There were boos early on when she mentioned Obama, but Clinton brought the crowd along nicely: no more boos.

I wish she had smiled more. She looked like she was speaking with a knife in her back.
It must have been very hard for her. She started out so sure she'd win, and she fought so hard. Now, finally, she put the good of the party, and the Dems winning the general election, above her own ambitions, and it can't have been easy. I almost feel sorry for her.

She did the right thing today, that's what counts. :)

So is the rest of the world. America cannot afford another disaster like the one we've been stuck in for the past 7+ years.

Purple, there is a reason that we have term limits, and your opinion of Bush (not saying that opinion is right or wrong, just saying it is your opinion) is one of those reasons. The USA will weather the storm, even if we get a monkey or a goat as President.

You and many others seem to forget that we have had far worse times than we are in now, or analysts believe we are heading for. The Dust Bowl and Depression. The Civil War. The Teapot Dome Scandal. The Nixon/Watergate Scandal. WWII. Vietnam. We weathered those storms, and came out the stronger for it, while, naturally, the sitting president was blamed for it, or hailed as a hero for bringing us out of it.

We all need to quit being so short sighted, seeing only the here and now of a Presidency. When will everyone start looking at the big picture, and assess a president when a president should be assessed: long after they leave office, and one can truly either admire or criticize the results of that work.

Am I the only one here that understands that the affects of policy do not show up until years after those policies have been instilled?

Nice, flowery words. I just hope she is sincere. If she is somewhat sincere, then props to her for being a good sport, and doing what is best for the party and the country.

It's far from a bad thing. Politicians realise this. The problem lies with the followers who believe that massive change can be effected in a short period of time with little civil disruption.
You're right, it can't. I'm hoping that Obama's supporters believe in something larger than just getting Obama the presidency, and will be willing to do more some civil disruption if change doesn't come.

I thought she was speaking softly when she should have been more vibrant, but seeing it again, I think she was trying to reach into the hearts of the hard core, and maybe her way was more effective. She was speaking to her core people. I think it was a sincere effort.

So I want to say to my supporters: When you hear people saying or think to yourself, “If only, or, “What if,” I say, please, don’t go there. Every moment wasted looking back keeps us from moving forward.

Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been. We have to work together for what still can be. And that is why I will work my heart out to make sure that Sen. Obama is our next president.

And I hope and pray that all of you will join me in that effort.

I guess I don't feel a dream has died, but that some do.

I was really impressed this year with all the great female Senators & Governors, also all the Representatives & great organizers & spokespeople on TV. More women & African Americans than .. I think ever ! It was a HUGE breakthrough. This campaign has accomplished so much, and it is just beginning. Onward !

She's at over $30 million now! If I were Sen. Obama, I would say --> I will help you with $$$ if you call off your quest to be VP.

$$$ or VP = decide.

NY Post today


BARACK'S CASH 'BAIL' FOR HILLARY COULD LET DONORS PAY OFF HER HUGE DEBT
By GEOFF EARLE, June 7, 2008 --

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama is willing to deploy his star power and massive donor network to help pay down the mountain of campaign debt Hillary Rodham Clinton amassed trying to defeat him, a top Obama supporter said yesterday.

"Certainly that is something that would be on the table," said former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, an Obama adviser.

"Obviously, we want to help each other," he told Bloomberg News.

I don't think I've ever been prouder of a politician than I am of Clinton today. She gave an outstanding speech. I know she's hurting and that this speech must have been hard for her, but - wow! - did she rise to the occasion.

My dad is disappointed. He wanted Hillary to win. He doesn't think Obama has done enough as Senator for one, and he really liked William Jefferson.

He was telling me that it was back to "bad choice, worse choice" again. And that even though he's staunchly Democratic, it will be tough to vote for him. I think the only thing that will make him eventually fill in the circle next to Obama is that he doesn't want McCain.

Moral of the story? I guess Obama doesn't have to win over everyone. But he can't lose them either. Clinton's concession goes far in preventing much of that from happening. I stop short of saying I'm proud of her because that's what she should do. But it is refreshing in a way.

He was telling me that it was back to "bad choice, worse choice" again. And that even though he's staunchly Democratic, it will be tough to vote for him. I think the only thing that will make him eventually fill in the circle next to Obama is that he doesn't want McCain.

I've had to fight that same battle here at home with the Other Half. He was all for Romney early on, although he kept an avid interest in all things Obama. It isn't too surprising, I guess, for a black man of his age to watch what has occurred this year with his jaw dropping. He voted for Obama in the Ohio primary - the first time he's voted Democratic in a primary since JFK in 1960. I'm half-ashamed to admit that he voted for Ross Perot during Bill's two elections, but there it is.

Moral of the story? I guess Obama doesn't have to win over everyone. But he can't lose them either. Clinton's concession goes far in preventing much of that from happening. I stop short of saying I'm proud of her because that's what she should do. But it is refreshing in a way.

Refreshing is a good choice of word. I thought it was the first speech she's given - maybe ever - that wasn't all about her. For her to be able to give it with such passion and conviction was wonderful.

Nice, flowery words. I just hope she is sincere. If she is somewhat sincere, then props to her for being a good sport, and doing what is best for the party and the country.
Well... maybe the bigwigs in the Democratic Party had to lean on her a bit to convince her. This was so different from the speech she gave last Tuesday.

The important thing is that she got the message herself, then broadcast it out there to her supporters. Let's just hope the people who were going to vote McCain rather than Obama heed her.

Well... maybe the bigwigs in the Democratic Party had to lean on her a bit to convince her. This was so different from the speech she gave last Tuesday.

Trust me, they did. Clinton’s exit: When push came to shove (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/10886.html) gives what I believe to be an accurate summary of what happened behind the scenes on Wednesday and Thursday between Clinton and her supporters on Capitol Hill. How Hillary Clinton's power play failed (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/07/do0711.xml) gives us a glimpse of what was going on in the privacy of the Clinton home. Bill was especially unwilling to concede anything.

On Tuesday night, as his wife Hillary's hopes of winning the Democratic presidential nomination were going the way of the Titanic, Bill Clinton was on his mobile telephone.

He was not discussing how Mrs Clinton could leave the race with dignity and congratulate Barack Obama on his historic victory in the primary elections.

Instead, the former president was shouting at his wife's aides urging them to pressure superdelegates to stand by her and cajole others to defect from Mr Obama. It was the political equivalent of rearranging the deckchairs on that doomed ship.

The important thing is that she got the message herself, then broadcast it out there to her supporters. Let's just hope the people who were going to vote McCain rather than Obama heed her.

Some will. Others won't. Right now, the sense I'm getting from the diehard Clinton supporters is unadulterated raw anger.

You know, I can understand it...I was not a supporter of Kerry at the beginning of the last election. When he won the primary, I tossed my hands up and yelled, "Well fine! I'm not voting at all!" But, after some time, I decided that I needed to vote against Bush getting back in. So, I bit the bullet and voted for Kerry, even knowing it probably wasn't going to do much.

I do undestand disappointment when a candidate that better matched your standards wins a primary. But, both democratic candidates are correct in the fact that there is way too much at stake to stay home or vote an "anger" vote and toss the baby out wtih the bathwater.

This election, I have much higher hopes that there will be more votes and voices with the same idea.

Here's a nice touch.

the Obama camp has set up a "Thank you, Hillary (http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/thankyouHRC?source=feature_thankyou?source=feature _thankyou)" page where people can leave a comment of support for her. The page also includes a video excerpt of Obama's speech in St. Paul earlier this week.

http://purplehawk.potterskeys.com/thankyouhillary.jpg

Here's a nice touch.

the Obama camp has set up a "Thank you, Hillary (http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/thankyouHRC?source=feature_thankyou?source=feature _thankyou)" page where people can leave a comment of support for her. The page also includes a video excerpt of Obama's speech in St. Paul earlier this week.

Now all it needs is a little "click here to donate to paying off Senator Clinton's campaign debts" button.

Given the new poll that shows over half of Democrats think Obama should pick Hillary for VP, I think he's going to have to do it to avoid splitting the party.

I can understand her supporters' anger and bitterness, and her own. Until four years ago, nobody had even heard of Senator Obama. Clinton's been waiting for this thing for sixteen years at least.

I suppose I'll vote for McCain. Although I'm not particularly fond of the man, with Obama as the alternative I'll take what I can get. I may have missed something, so perhaps an Obama supporter can answer a question for me; does Obama actually have a plan that makes him a worthy candidate, or is he just getting by on the fact that he'll be the first black President if he wins?

I suppose I'll vote for McCain. Although I'm not particularly fond of the man, with Obama as the alternative I'll take what I can get. I may have missed something, so perhaps an Obama supporter can answer a question for me; does Obama actually have a plan that makes him a worthy candidate, or is he just getting by on the fact that he'll be the first black President if he wins?

IMO that's about the size of it.:no:

If Clinton was really really being supportive wouldn't she have turned over her delegates to Obama?

I suppose I'll vote for McCain. Although I'm not particularly fond of the man, with Obama as the alternative I'll take what I can get. I may have missed something, so perhaps an Obama supporter can answer a question for me; does Obama actually have a plan that makes him a worthy candidate, or is he just getting by on the fact that he'll be the first black President if he wins?

Witch, click here (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/) for all you want to know about Senator Obama's position on the issues. I found it interesting that Daniel Larison of The American Conservative thinks that Obama is the more substantive candidate (http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/06/05/style-over-substance/). McCain, he says, "is the one offering mostly pious bromides about victory, service and being American." Larison thinks this is a good thing because "McCain’s entire campaign has been even more driven by biography and character than Obama’s." While I don't agree with his take that McCain's fuzzy positions on the issues is an advantage, I do appreciate him pointing out the fallacy in thinking Obama is an empty hat with no policy expertise at all.

If you, like me, are not interested in electing a president who is running on an empty platform of "pious bromides about victory, service and being American," you'd do well to take a look a look at Obama's policy prescriptions.

If Clinton was really really being supportive wouldn't she have turned over her delegates to Obama?

Why? He doesn't need them.

ETA:

Senator Obama's response to Senator Clinton:

"Obviously, I am thrilled and honored to have Senator Clinton's support. But more than that, I honor her today for the valiant and historic campaign she has run. She shattered barriers on behalf of my daughters and women everywhere, who now know that there are no limits to their dreams. And she inspired millions with her strength, courage and unyielding commitment to the cause of working Americans. Our party and our country are stronger because of the work she has done throughout her life, and I'm a better candidate for having had the privilege of competing with her in this campaign. No one knows better than Senator Clinton how desperately America and the American people need change, and I know she will continue to be in the forefront of that battle this fall and for years to come."

Al Franken won his primary, and will be Senate Candidate in Minnesota.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080607/ap_on_el_se/minnesota_senate_franken;_ylt=ArEQaRbe9C76gKP21Hkp _WhsnwcF

His opponent immediately conceded, threw his support behind him & vowed to support him 100%. (I say nothing!)

does Obama actually have a plan that makes him a worthy candidate...

Don't get played by those that try define him merely by the color of his skin. He has substantive policies (available in his blue book & on his website).

The reason that Hillary & Obama didn't talk much about policy between them during the primary (which has been occupying our attention), is that their policies were 95% similar. So if you liked Clinton's policies, Obama is like 95% there, compared to 0% McCain.

So the Primary became about personality & management style. Obama raised $250 million these last 2 years WITH MINIMAL DEBT & kept a unified management team & a core message. Clinton, for all her experience, was more chaotic & finished with $30 M debt !!!

McCain himself now (online) is copying Obama's message & color scheme --> trying to rebrand himself as a type of Obama. So who is really leading the debate?

There are HUGE difference between Obama & McCain & the policies they propose for the future.

These include:
health care reform
future of war in Iraq (costs $3 billion A WEEK)
proposed responses to mortgage crisis
depth of commitment to green energy & ending oil dependence
freedom from lobbyist monies
ending prejudice of all kinds
taking care of GI's who come home injured, mentally or physically
education reform
who they would recommend to Supreme Court
reproductive choice
So don't chose before you investigate.

I suppose I'll vote for McCain. Although I'm not particularly fond of the man, with Obama as the alternative I'll take what I can get. I may have missed something, so perhaps an Obama supporter can answer a question for me; does Obama actually have a plan that makes him a worthy candidate, or is he just getting by on the fact that he'll be the first black President if he wins?
I don't consider myself an Obama supporter following his speech to AIPAC, but I can give you an answer. Yes, he does have a substantive plan, although it is not one you are likely to support given your previous posts here. One of the big issues that features in his book - and that will probably gain more prominence in the Presidential campaign - is a greater focus on education. He supports increased support for students to go to university, including lowered interest on student loans; higher pay for teachers to attract the highest caliber of people, combined with possible merit pay to ensure the teachers are doing their jobs well; and greater investment in research and technology to enable global competitiveness with rising Asia. He favours withdrawal from Iraq and a greater focus on Afghanistan and fighting al Qaeda. He advocates government-funded opt-in national health insurance for those that want it. And he made noise during the run-up to the Ohio primary about wanting to renegotiate NAFTA, although I'm dubious about how much will come of that. He is resolutely pro free trade in fact, but believes it is dangerous to make further moves in that direction before taking steps to convince American workers that it does not hurt their interests - otherwise further action will simply be met with a harmful (in his view) protectionist backlash.

That's just a start - checking out his website that others have linked to would be the fastest way to check out the rest.

Oh, and it's not just the fact that he's black. There's also the eye candy factor.

On other topics: lol Senator Al Franken. I hope he wins just for the hilarity value. Wonder if we could get Jon Stewart to run for Congress too. ;)

I have a couple of questions in my mind moving forward:

1. Why do a lot of people say Obama "scares" them ?

I assume the reason is NOT racism, but I can't figure it out. He strikes me as very calm, competent, reasoned, balanced & intelligent. So I really don't get it.

2. Who do you think will declare their VP first?

My guess : Obama.

If Obama goes with Hillary, McCain could go with Huckabee (who played better in Appalachia & the South & could fight her for Arkansas).


If a Virginian, McCain could go for that former Virginian Governor who ran for President this year (name escapes me).

On the Other Hand

if McCain goes for Romney (Mormon), Obama could go for Strickland (attended Methodist College & a Pastor, although he didn't work as one)


if McCain goes for Charlie Crist (FLA), Obama could go for Wexler, or Rendell.

But over all, Obama might chose to go with Bill Richardson. (South West / Catholic). Hard to know.

1. Why do a lot of people say Obama "scares" them?
I can think of two reasons. One, the media has made a lot out of a few short Reverend Wright clips, and those clips are enough to scare some people and make them think Obama is not a moderate, regardless of his policies.

Secondly, there is the movement Obama has behind him. I know people online who are turned off by that, seeing it as almost a sort of cult thing. A person who can get such a large mass of people so passionately (and, in the view of some, unthinkingly) devoted to him scares people.

1. Why do a lot of people say Obama "scares" them ?

Since he doesn't scare me in the least, I'll be interested in seeing the replies to this question.

The Virginian you couldn't remember is Mark Warner.

Conservative Peggy Noonan, who writes for the Wall Street Journal and Patriot Post, has some words about Hillary Clinton's decision to suspend her campaign and endorse Obama.

"But this I believe is the truth: America dodged a bullet... Mrs. Clinton would have been a disaster as president. Mr. Obama may prove a disaster, and John McCain may, but she would be. Mr. Obama may lie, and Mr. McCain may lie, but she would lie. And she would have brought the whole rattling caravan of Clintonism with her--the scandal-making that is compulsive, the drama that is unending, the sheer daily madness that is her, and him. We have been spared this. Those who did it deserve to be thanked. May I rise in a toast to the Democratic Party."

Recoil Election (http://patriotpost.us/opinion/entry.asp?entry_id=42564)

On other topics: lol Senator Al Franken. I hope he wins just for the hilarity value. Wonder if we could get Jon Stewart to run for Congress too.

I can't wait to see Adam Sandler and Chris Rock working in the Federal Government, as well!

I can't wait to see Adam Sandler and Chris Rock working in the Federal Government, as well!
Well, the first too are at least political satirists, so they actually care about politics. And sometimes Jon shows more sense than any of the candidates running.

Regrettably, the internet cannot show my sarcasm.

Every American needs to watch Adam Curtis' brilliant documentaries "The Century of Self" and "The Power of Nightmares" (I believe both are up on google video) before casting their vote in this election.

Please remember that this election is not just about you and your country, it will effect pretty much everyone all over the world.

Am I the only one here that understands that the affects of policy do not show up until years after those policies have been instilled?
That is true for economic and political policies whose effects take some time to show. I'd say the results of the Iraq War - 4,000 American troops, tens of thousands of civilians of all nationalities but mostly Iraqis, a country in shambles, lives uprooted, children maimed, billions of dollars wasted and pretty little to show for it... I'd say the effects can be seen quickly. When President Bush and Senator McCain claim "progress" because the number of bombings and killings have dropped since the surge began, does anyone remember that there were no bombings and killings in Baghdad, Mosul, or Basrah before we barged in? That those are the immediate and direct effects of the war Bush launched as part of his foreign policy?

And McCain wants us to stay there another 100 years if need be? :rolleyes:

Take a look at the last few posts in the Bush Administration thread and there you'll see the real reason we chose to invade and ruin Iraq.

I'm beginning to see panic and desperation in some Republicans. On MSNBC today, conservative pundit Brad Blakeman made a spectacularly boneheaded remark about Obama:

"But one thing that really troubled me today, is I think Hillary did an outstanding job as an American. I have to say, leaving partisanship aside, I'm very proud of what she's done for our country. And having said that, Barack Obama was not present for her speech, either watching it on television or there in the hall, he's out golfing. That is just outrageous to me, he would not be watching this most historic speech.

The Kos blogger notes that this remark was a "pitiful effort to drive a wedge between Clinton and Obama supporters."

For the record, Obama did watch the speech and put in a call in to her after she gave it... not to mention adding a page to his website where people can offer thanks to Mrs. Clinton.

Republican Desperation (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/7/144842/8585/119/531774)

ETA:

Frank Rich's One Historic Night, Two Americas (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/opinion/08rich.html?ref=opinion) probes several themes, but the one that amused me was his definition of a "dream ticket" which included Hillary Clinton, to be sure - but on a ticket with John McCain, despite their differences on the issues.

"... Never was this more evident than Tuesday night, when Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain both completely misread a one-of-a-kind historical moment as they tried to cling to the prerogatives of the 20th century’s old guard. ...

"Washington’s faith in hierarchical status adds a thick layer of pomposity to politicians who linger there too long. Mrs. Clinton referred to herself by the first-person pronoun 64 times in her speech, and Mr. McCain did so 60 times in his. Mr. Obama settled for 30.

"Remarkably, neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. McCain had the grace to offer a salute to Mr. Obama’s epochal political breakthrough, which reverberated so powerfully across the country and throughout the world. By being so small and ungenerous, they made him look taller. Their inability to pivot even briefly from partisan self-interest could not be a more telling symptom of the dysfunctional Washington culture Mr. Obama aspires to mend. ..."

There's a lot more where ^ came from. Enjoy!